Thread: Trinitarianism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024132
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."

I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Why do I get an email form rather than a link to a thread?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Good question.

Well, if one agrees with Newman, 'Firmly I believe and truly, God is Three and God is One' then God's very nature is Trinitarian and so one would necessarily be 'missing out' if one didn't believe and engage with that.

It was a bit trite and sentimental, but I reckon the old-style Pentecostals back in my home town in South Wales were onto something when they used to sing:

'Thank you God for sending Jesus
Thank you Jesus that you came,
Holy Spirit won't you tell me,
More about that lovely Name?'

You can certainly apply Trinitarian doctrine in a soteriological sense - the Reformed tradition does that a lot. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit forming the plan of salvation in some secret and eternal conclave ...

Apart from anything else, there's a great richness in Trinitarian theology and spirituality - although the two really go together of course and shouldn't be separated out.

For a start, the Son our Saviour is not just man but God - the God-Man - fully God and fully man. Consequently he is able to 'save to the uttermost' all who come to him.

And the Holy Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, the One who draws alongside us to help us in our weakness, who indwells us, who takes of the things of Christ and makes them more real to us and 'applies' them to us, as it were - He is not some kind of vague faith-force or impersonal influence but Himself Very God of Very God just as the Father and the Son are God.

The whole thing is pretty mind-blowing, of course, and beyond all imperfect analogies and frameworks.

Consequently, it's fiendishly difficult to explain and to state exactly why it's so important in any way that doesn't sound all sound-bitey and inadequate.

But I couldn't really imagine being Unitarian or non-Trinitarian. Not that I'd be nasty to anyone who was. But I dunno ... the alternatives don't seem so 'three-dimensional' somehow, if that makes any sense. There's a warmth about the Trinity as well as a great Mystery.

'God is in Himself a sweet society,' as John Wesley put it.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Why do I get an email form rather than a link to a thread?
Probably because I f*cked up!
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
Try this link for the post referred to in the OP.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
This may work better?
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
God's very nature is Trinitarian and so one would necessarily be 'missing out' if one didn't believe and engage with that.
I suppose my problem with this is: why must it be a trinity?

That God is essentially a community (in the beginning was the conversation?) is easy for me to accept. But... why (if it has to be more than one) must it be limited to three?
 
Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :
 
A question full of awesomeness.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
God's very nature is Trinitarian and so one would necessarily be 'missing out' if one didn't believe and engage with that.
I suppose my problem with this is: why must it be a trinity?

That God is essentially a community (in the beginning was the conversation?) is easy for me to accept. But... why (if it has to be more than one) must it be limited to three?
Because Jesus limited to three when he revealed the name of God as "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in his commission to the disciples after the Resurrection.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
So the entire thing is dependent on Matthew 28:19?

It's a bit weak isn't it?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."

I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
The truth?
The fullest revelation of God?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So the entire thing is dependent on Matthew 28:19?

It's a bit weak isn't it?
Well, if you accept that the risen Lord is God, then when he says something, we have to at least pay attention.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Yeah... but it's reported speech and he said a hell of a lot more than that.

Is it really worth getting hung up on it?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
If Jesus is incarnate God; if the Holy Spirit is also God, then there is no question of there being a Trinity. The absence of another divine person in Scripture suggests heavily that there are only 3 persons in the Godhead.

If you would like there to be 4 or more, it might be helpful if you might suggest his/her identity and purpose within the divine plan.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Yeah... but it's reported speech and he said a hell of a lot more than that.

Is it really worth getting hung up on it?
Well, you have the witness of St John which declares the Son as God (John 1), and mentions the Holy Spirit as the other Advocate (John 14:26), the witness of St Paul (2 Corinthians 13:13), plus the Church Fathers, plus the ecumenical councils which upheld the teaching as authoritative, plus the historic consensus of church theologians from the Patristic and medieval ages, plus the fact that both Protestants and Catholics, while bitterly battling each other over soteriology, accepted the Trinity as doctrine...plus countless other saints who saw this teaching as important.

I consider this historic testimony as impressive in upholding Trinitarian belief as core Christian doctrine.

[ 02. November 2012, 23:31: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :
 
I was raised as a non-trinitarian. Jesus, I was taught, was God come to earth, he left Elijah minding the shop. No Holy Spirit entered the picture in my upbringing.

Later, as I became more conventionally Anglican in my faith, I struggled with the notion of a trinity. 'Three in one' sounded like sleight of hand to me, an eliding of logical nonsense.

Now I feel differently. We know now that the human mind is not a simple unity, consciousness is divided. So what's so incomprehensible about a divided god? 3 in 1 perhaps, though if it's 2 or 4, I'm not worried.
 
Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
I was raised as a non-trinitarian. Jesus, I was taught, was God come to earth, he left Elijah minding the shop. No Holy Spirit entered the picture in my upbringing.

Later, as I became more conventionally Anglican in my faith.
If you don't mind my asking, what kind of congregation or tradition were you raised in that held these beliefs? Or were these the beliefs of your household?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
God's very nature is Trinitarian and so one would necessarily be 'missing out' if one didn't believe and engage with that.
I suppose my problem with this is: why must it be a trinity?

That God is essentially a community (in the beginning was the conversation?) is easy for me to accept. But... why (if it has to be more than one) must it be limited to three?
Because in the story of salvation history (the bible) only three were revealed.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
I was raised as a non-trinitarian. Jesus, I was taught, was God come to earth, he left Elijah minding the shop. No Holy Spirit entered the picture in my upbringing.
The Holy Spirit has been missing in the western theological tradition for a while.

It was only "rediscovered" by many theologians about the middle of the 20th century.

Pentecostals have taken off and run with it.

[ 03. November 2012, 04:42: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If Jesus is incarnate God; if the Holy Spirit is also God, then there is no question of there being a Trinity. The absence of another divine person in Scripture suggests heavily that there are only 3 persons in the Godhead.

If you would like there to be 4 or more, it might be helpful if you might suggest his/her identity and purpose within the divine plan.
Holy Sophia (Wisdom)? [Biased] Personally, I could use some Wisdom whispering in my ear. But, no, I don't actually consider Sophia the Fourth Member of the Godhead.

Sometimes I've seen images of her as a symbolic guise of Christ, which I kind of like. And I've also heard her referred to as an emanation of the grace of God. This illumination from Hildegard of Bingen's visions is evocative. And so is this contemporary image painted by Betsy Porter. Note the seven pointed crown (seven rays, a symbol of the Spirit), but that the halo is not the one worn by members of the Trinity in iconography.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Wisdom (as conveyed in the Old Testament) is the second person of the trinity: the logos ( as conveyed in the New Testament).

[edited to include:

I think. [Paranoid] ]

[ 03. November 2012, 05:33: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
[Oh, andreas1984 (Andrew, El Greco) would that you were an active Shipmate at this hour!]

Historical Christianity has been confirmed as essentially Trinitarian since the 4th/5th Century Councils settled the issue out of controversy. Which is why the historical beliefs of Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants concur on this. (There are some differences over detailed interpretation of the meaning of the Trinity).

Which doesn't mean that all self-identifying Christians are trinitarian, or have a very good grasp of the meaning of the doctrine. Its detailed interpretation was essentially a defence against what was regarded as a departure from the the "handed down" witness of the Apostles.

Because the study of early church history is often regarded as "dry as dust", then the controversies surrounding the doctrine and the reason for its wording are often very little understood. Personally, I think that is a pity.

I think the OP is asking about its current value. If one accepts the doctrine as revealed truth (as I do, and I'm a nonconformist protestant), what difference does that acceptance make in practice.

Well, I think the truth sets you free! I think there was considerable wisdom (as well as a good deal of politicking) in the work of the ecumenical councils on this matter. In general, I think the doctrine continues to act as a defensive guard against errors in belief and behaviour and a real positive help in worship and prayer.

I'm going on shore leave today so I don't have time to unpack that statement. When I get back, I'll have a go if the thread is still live.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If Jesus is incarnate God; if the Holy Spirit is also God, then there is no question of there being a Trinity. The absence of another divine person in Scripture suggests heavily that there are only 3 persons in the Godhead.
So do you believe in the trinity or not? [Confused]

quote:
If you would like there to be 4 or more, it might be helpful if you might suggest his/her identity and purpose within the divine plan.
I don't particularly care, since it doesn't seem to make any real difference. If I did, I could work my way through the
Sephirot...

I still don't get what I'm missing... The original claim that sparked this off wasn't anything about having to accept the imparted tradition just because; or even trusting the word of Jesus or the Bible. It was the claim that the trinitarian had more of something than the non-trinitarian...
quote:
Foster: I'm still a bit hazy on the trinity.
Headmaster: Three in one and one in three, perfectly straightforward; any doubts about that, see your maths master.

 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Of course I believe in the trinity.

What you would be missing, self-evidently, if there was no Trinity, is the divinity of Jesus.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Wisdom (as conveyed in the Old Testament) is the second person of the trinity: the logos ( as conveyed in the New Testament).

[edited to include:

I think. [Paranoid] ]
I can live with that. [Smile]

And Mudfrog, now I'm waiting for Freddy of the New Church to appear. I was struck when he said IIRC that Jesus Christ was the only God.

Frpm the New Church site:
quote:
God is one: Traditional Christianity says that God is one, yet insists that there are three distinct Divine persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When you have three persons who are all knowing, all powerful, and all present it makes three Gods. New Christianity says that God is one (Mark 12:32, Isaiah 44:6, Zecheriah 14:9). The one God of all, out of love and concern for the human race and the state of humanity at that time, took on a physical human conceived of the Divine and born of the virgin Mary. Within the human of Jesus was the Divine itself. Throughout His lifetime Jesus gradually got rid of what was merely human and took on more and more of the Divine within Him until He made His human completely Divine. This means, God is one, within whom is the Divine Trinity, and He is the Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18). Just as we all have a soul, a body and the actions of our life (and are one person) so it is with God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are names given for the soul, body and activity of the one God. One God, one divine person.
In other words a modal Trinity.

Who was minding the store -ie the rest of the universe(s)- while was He was Incarnate? To me that is just as confusing a concept as the one saying that God is One in Three persons, which I don't totally grasp but believe. No wonder Mohammed cut that particular Gordian knot and declared that "there is only One God and his name is Allah". And that Jesus was a prophet (but not as good as Mohammed). Much simpler.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

I still don't get what I'm missing...
A completely fair statement and very good question!

God is Trinity. So what? What does that tell us about God and about us?

Two main issues arise:

1) The incarnation. God becomes man. What are the implications of this for us?

It effects quite a few things. The most popular one at the time was sotierology. If Jesus was not God then man would not be saved.

This is based on atonement by Athanasius - the main proponent of the trinity in its initial stages of construction.

2) If God is three "persons" then God is in relationship. Augustine was the main proponent of the idea that God is defined by relationship. God the father is only God the father in relation to the son. The son is only God the son in relation to the father etcetc.. (this is the western tradition developed by Augustine - the eastern is a bit different) and they are completely equal.

So if God is in relationship, what does that say about our relationships?

That kind of thing......

So that's the longish answer.

The short answer is:

1) It affects how God "saves" us.
2) It affects how God relates to us in the world.

The main thing it tells us is that God is both active in the world and present in the world.

God is not a million light years away in heaven.

Oh, and also that God gives a shit.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I agree with Mudfrog. One of the key things that would 'go' if one didn't have a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead is the divinity of Christ - as well as the divinity of God the Holy Spirit, of course.

I think Evensong is on the money, in her own idiosyncratic way, by saying it affects our understanding of salvation ('Jesus is God, he can save us') and of God's economy, if you like, His continuing involvement in the world.

That said, I think that Evensong caricatures things to some extent by saying that the Holy Spirit was largely absent in Western theology until the mid-20th century. The Pentecostals were early 20th century, for a kick-off, and weren't particular influenced by developments in academic theology - but arguably only reacted to them in a similar way to the way that non-Pentecostal fundamentalists reacted to liberal theology. But that's another issue.

I've often heard the Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit was downplayed in the West for centuries, with the notorious 'filioque clause' to blame for that. Consequently, in their view, the Western churches descended into a dry Scholasticism ... with occasional 'enthusiastic' movements such as Wesleyanism to bring back some warmth ...

I suspect there is some truth in this, but there is a rich vein of Trinitarian theology in the Reformed tradition too and also in the RC Church no doubt ... although in both it might sometimes end up being expressed in somewhat abstract ways ...

It is a tricky one to pin down, better 'felt than tell't' as it were.

I often say that I'm so Trinitarian that I'm like a stick of rock. You could cut me anyway and find the Nicene formularies running through the very fibre of my being.

But when I'm asked to explain or articulate why, I find it quite difficult.

I can certainly understand why it wouldn't make any sense at all to a Muslim or to someone from Freddy's 'New Church' or to a non-Trinitarian Quaker. But then, I'm not that 'modalism' fits the available scriptural and traditional evidence either. You've also got those intriguing verses in Acts where the disciples appear to be able to differentiate when it is the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit who is 'speaking' or communing with them ... I'm not sure how far to take some of that but it is interesting that the author of Luke/Acts does draw/hint at some of these concepts in embryonic form, rather than simply saying 'God' and leaving it at that.

I could cite chapter and verse if you're interested.

I am happy to accept Trinitarian formularies as revealed truth. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that aspects of truth and other truths aren't to be found elsewhere. But in terms of how I 'relate' to God in prayer and so on, I adopt a Trinitarian model - for want of a better word. I address God the Father as God, God the Son as God and God the Holy Spirit as God.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I was brought up with the belief that "There is one God, in whom is the divine trinity"

That'll do me. First and foremost there is one God. Jesus was human, full to overflowing with the Divine (The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God)

(Modalism, I know, but - as I said - it'll do for me)
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."

I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
Being a Christian.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It might 'do' for you, Boogie, but it wouldn't do for the delegates at the Council of Nicea.

Since when has 'it'll do for me' been the yardstick for determining Christian doctrine?

(Ducks as the brick-bats come in ...)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I'm not trying to determine Christian doctrine Gamaliel. I'm just trying to explain why I don't feel I'm missing out by rejecting traditional trinitarianism.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I think the "me" in "it will do for me" is a get-out-of-jail-free card as far as official Christian doctrine goes. Now if she were a teacher of doctrine...but she's just a happy artist. [Smile]

ETA: Obviously she can speak for herself. [Biased]

[ 03. November 2012, 16:18: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It might 'do' for you, Boogie, but it wouldn't do for the delegates at the Council of Nicea.

Since when has 'it'll do for me' been the yardstick for determining Christian doctrine?

(Ducks as the brick-bats come in ...)
Well, there are people who say that they disbelieve in much of Christianity, but still go to church every Sunday. I might question their cognitive dissonance, but it's their prerogative to attend or not.

It's when people start demanding that the Church be changed to suit their views (dropping the Creeds, denying the deity of Christ and the Incarnation), that I start to protest.

Frankly I don't know if it is all that healthy to cross one's fingers every time one recites the Creeds in church.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, fair do's, Boogie, but you were framing it in theological terms rather than saying it was simply your particular position, ie. as if it were an inherited body of doctrine, 'There is one God in whom there is the divine Trinity'.

See the difference?

No?

Oh, I'll shut up then ...

[Biased] [Razz]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
You added a word, Gamaliel.

I was brought up in the New Church (Freddy's denomination) and this is their declared faith.
"There is one God in whom is the divine trinity, and he is the Lord God and saviour Jesus Christ"

I then became pretty much an atheist/agnostic from age 18 to 30. Then had a sudden conversion and joined the Methodist Church - quickly becoming a con/evo/charismatic.

Since then I have calmed down into a mish mash of liberal/unitarian/modalist/univeraslist kind of a Christian.

I still pray in tongues, which is pretty much all that's left of my charismatic days.

I still attend my (pretty evangelical) Methodist Church as I love the people there - they are very much my second family. We have a new minister and I explained that I no longer lead worship due to my shift in beliefs. She was more understanding, she was great.

(I'm now techy person doing the full AV job - and I love it!)

Sorry if this was a big tangent, Garasu [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 03. November 2012, 16:42: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Boogie admits to a 'modalist' stance and is jumped on from a great height.

Pity. Because a modified modalism has been the hallmark of many a theologian past and present. Including one whose text book on theology was 'standard' for many a year in Anglican circles.

And I. for one, am happier with a modified modalism than I am with an implicit Tritheism which all the mental contortions of Nicea and Chalcedon cant avoid.

But then I am not much persuaded by formulations in terms of Greek concepts.

[ 03. November 2012, 17:38: Message edited by: shamwari ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
But, shawari, while agreeing that people shouldn't get "jumped on" if that means bullied, the thread is about trinitarianism, and modalism, in spite of its long and illustrious history, isn't trinitarianism.

[ 03. November 2012, 17:41: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But, shawari, while agreeing that people shouldn't get "jumped on" if that means bullied, the thread is about trinitarianism, and modalism, in spite of its long and illustrious history, isn't trinitarianism.
The thread is about rejecting trinitarianism. So, surely, alternatives to it can be discussed?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I didn't jump on Boogie from a great height, Shamwari. Besides, she's big enough to tell me to get lost herself if she found my comments at all great heightful.

I was merely trying to establish where she was coming from ... which I s'pose I pretty much knew anyway, although I hadn't known that she was brought up a Swedenborgian.

At one time I might have had a go at her for hanging onto the 'tongues' thing whilst not being a fully-orbed Trinitarian - but I wouldn't do so these days, partly because I think the whole 'tongues' thing is neutral and doesn't necessarily have a great deal to do with Trinitarian faith anyway - hence you find Sufists and animists and all sorts of people who can apparently 'speak in tongues.'

I'd also suggest that you probably don't even need faith to do it in the first place as it is, by a large, a form of learned behaviour or at least something that tends to rub-off on people when they knock around in places that go in for that sort of thing.

But that's another issue ...

I can see why you might object to aspects of Trinitarianism and what to ease things towards a more modalist model, Shamwari, but I'm not sure I'd want to follow you in that direction. If that makes me all great height-ish then so be it.

Just because I don't agree with Boogie on this particular issue doesn't mean that I'm 'against' her or don't value her contributions here aboard Ship. On the contrary, I tend to enjoy reading her posts.

In a similar way, I enjoy reading Freddy's posts and W H Hyatt's posts. I don't disrespect them because they are not Trinitarians.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Boogie:
I was brought up in the New Church (Freddy's denomination) and this is their declared faith.
"There is one God in whom is the divine trinity, and he is the Lord God and saviour Jesus Christ"
Well this is interesting...

You claim to be a Modalist but really aren't. Your particular heresy is closer to Arianism but isn't (has a technical name but I'd have to look it up). Freddy, who believes what you just quoted, is a Modalist but claims he isn't a Modalist. In fact, what Swedenborgians believes, sounds close enough to Modalism that coining a different term isn't necessary. In any event, Freddy admits what the New Church teaches isn't orthodox Christianity.

On the other hand, Freddy is more orthodox than many mainline Protestant pastors I know. We might as well work on a full communion agreement with The New Church. Don't let that go to your head, Freddy. Rastafarians are also more orthodox than many mainline pastors I know. [Razz]
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Let's get down to details.

The Hebraic view of God is that, amongst other things he/she is everywhere present, all powerful and all knowing. The OT is full to overflowing with evidence of this.

Jesus was not any of these things.

So to say Jesus = God is stretching things.

Jesus once defined God. " God is Spirit" he said.

If a human being is full of the Spirit ( as Luke said of Jesus at the beginning of His ministry) then why shouldn't he be described as Divine?

P.T. Forsyth who advocated a kenotic Christology argued that some of the attributes of God are retracted into potentiality in Jesus. This doesn't make Him less than Divine . For divinity consists not in omnipotence or omni-presence or omniscience but in Holy Love and Jesus embodied that. Or Holy Love was incarnate in Him.

McQuarrie spoke of God as Being; Jesus as Expressive Being and the Holy Spirit as Unitary Being. Just because this does not conform to the Chalcedon categories of 'substance' and the Latin categories of 'persona' or the like does not disqualify it as being heretical and non-Trinitarian.

There is room for elaboration here but it does not advance understanding to rule out of order anything which is not Chalcedonian Greek in conceptual terms.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Let's ask Paul then - "Jesus who, being in very nature [permanent and real essence and form] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (i.e. possessively, to himself), but made himself nothing, taking the very nature [temporary though real, essence and form] of a servant, being made in human likeness.

Jesus was not merely a man filled with the Spirit of God, he was the very essence of God in human form.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
I agree with what I understood in that, shamwari. Not sure about the rest. Could you simplify?
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Mudfrog

A little basic research on the Philippians 2 passage which you quote will indicate that an alternative view is equally ( and much more likely)

The template which the early hymn uses ( and supported by Paul in quoting it) might well be that of Adam and the Garden of Eden story rather than a pre=existent Divine Redeemer coming down from heaven.

Do your homework before you launch into Papal infallibility from a Sally Ann perspective.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And Mudfrog, now I'm waiting for Freddy of the New Church to appear. I was struck when he said IIRC that Jesus Christ was the only God.

Frpm the New Church site:
quote:
God is one: Traditional Christianity says that God is one, yet insists that there are three distinct Divine persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When you have three persons who are all knowing, all powerful, and all present it makes three Gods. New Christianity says that God is one (Mark 12:32, Isaiah 44:6, Zecheriah 14:9). The one God of all, out of love and concern for the human race and the state of humanity at that time, took on a physical human conceived of the Divine and born of the virgin Mary. Within the human of Jesus was the Divine itself. Throughout His lifetime Jesus gradually got rid of what was merely human and took on more and more of the Divine within Him until He made His human completely Divine. This means, God is one, within whom is the Divine Trinity, and He is the Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18). Just as we all have a soul, a body and the actions of our life (and are one person) so it is with God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are names given for the soul, body and activity of the one God. One God, one divine person.
In other words a modal Trinity.

Who was minding the store -ie the rest of the universe(s)- while was He was Incarnate? To me that is just as confusing a concept as the one saying that God is One in Three persons, which I don't totally grasp but believe. No wonder Mohammed cut that particular Gordian knot and declared that "there is only One God and his name is Allah". And that Jesus was a prophet (but not as good as Mohammed). Much simpler.
I don't mind my beliefs being labeled as heresy, but I do prefer that they be labeled accurately. New Church (aka Swedenborgian) beliefs about the Trinity are definitely not modalist. Insisting that they sound modalist or deciding that they lead to a question of who was minding the store just make it clear that these beliefs are being misunderstood.

It's true that some of the words that can be used to help describe New Church beliefs about the Trinity can also be used to help describe Modalism, but I can assure you that Swedenborg presents a doctrine that is very different from all the other doctrines that mainstream Christianity has labeled as heresy (as far as I've been able to determine).

In fact, I've done a fair amount of research to find the best-fitting labels for what we believe, and I've identified two that come the closest: Monothelitism and Miaphysitism. What we believe about Jesus from his birth to his resurrection can be somewhat accurately described as Monothelitism (the belief that Christ was 2 natures in 1 person except that he only had a divine will and no human will) while what we believe about him after his resurrection is more accurately described as Miaphysitism (in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one or single nature ("physis"), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration). However, the primary thing about our view of the Trinity that differs from mainstream Christianity and from almost all other heresies is that while both of these labels normally apply to ideas about God the Son, with our beliefs, they would apply to God as a single person.

So if you want a short label to use for our beliefs about the Trinity, my suggestion would be temporal unitarian (with a lower case "u") Monothelitism leading to unitarian Miaphysitism. Even then, it wouldn't be entirely accurate, but it would be close enough to satisfy me.

And to your earlier point, Mudfrog:

quote:
What you would be missing, self-evidently, if there was no Trinity, is the divinity of Jesus.
we hold the divinity of Jesus Christ to be the core of our religion.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Mudfrog

A little basic research on the Philippians 2 passage which you quote will indicate that an alternative view is equally ( and much more likely)

The template which the early hymn uses ( and supported by Paul in quoting it) might well be that of Adam and the Garden of Eden story rather than a pre=existent Divine Redeemer coming down from heaven.

Do your homework before you launch into Papal infallibility from a Sally Ann perspective.
Nowhere have I read that rather strange interpretation.

And as for Papal infallibility! I have never mentioned it, what are you on about??
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Not a strange interpretation Mudfrog.

It all depends on the meaning of the verb in v 6

It can mean "retained" ( which is the meaning you give)

Or it can mean "grasped / snatched at" which is the "strange interpretation" you attribute to me.

If the latter then consider the Garden of Eden story.

Did not "Adam" grasp at the opportunity of being God-like?

Was he not disobedient at sntaching at the chance?

Did not Christ reject that? in the Philippians 2 meaning of the v 6 verb?

was not Jesus obedient ( Phil 2) even unto death?

so we have here Jesus reversing Adam

And did not Paul often speak of Jesus as a 2nd Adam reversing the first Adam's sin and its consequences?

As by one man came death so by one man came life?

as in adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive?

as by one man's disobedience came death so by one man's obedience came life?

a little more involvement in the scriptures would indicate that this is no mere "strange" interpretation.

do a bit of biblical research for yourself.

[ 03. November 2012, 21:34: Message edited by: shamwari ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think Shamwari has been flitting between this thread and the one on Papal Infallibility and has consequently got his wires crossed ...

Nevertheless, I'm learning a lot on this thread.

I would accept that the full Chalcedonian formularies were a development from what was current at the time of Paul and the disciples - but they were based on scripture and tradition. We can't prove one way or the other that the apostle Paul would have signed up to them himself ... but (and perhaps it's my Trinitarian bias) I can't see that the NT simply indicates that Jesus was simply a man who happened to be particularly 'full' of the Holy Spirit - the Incarnation surely represents a lot more than that.

I don't see Mudfrog as representing a purely Salvation Army perspective here, what he is articulating is common to creedal Christianity across all Churches and denominations.

I'm with Beeswax Altar on this one. The Swedenborgians are up front about how their views differ from that of 'mainstream', creedal Christianity.

I might be naive and I might be simplistic, but what Shamwari seems to be suggesting is something that uses the same language but means something entirely different ...
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I cross-posted with Shamwari ...

Sure, I can see that this interpretation holds water, but it isn't the only 'witness' on the matter, as it were.

Call us naive, but in the circles I was involved in for many years we always asserted that Jesus (unlike the first Adam) did not see Godhead as a thing to be grasped as he already possessed it ... but I can see that this interpretation also begs a few questions.

How, Shamwari, would you deal with Thomas's 'My Lord and my God?' comment in John's Gospel?

I don't want to get into bald proof-texting but there are plenty of NT references that can be used to assert the divinity of Christ.

How do you read those, Shamwari?

Is it your instinct or inclination to elide them or to suggest that the Church later put too much weight on them and read more into them than was intended by the original authors?
 
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
I was raised as a non-trinitarian. Jesus, I was taught, was God come to earth, he left Elijah minding the shop. No Holy Spirit entered the picture in my upbringing.

Later, as I became more conventionally Anglican in my faith.
If you don't mind my asking, what kind of congregation or tradition were you raised in that held these beliefs? Or were these the beliefs of your household?
My family were the last remnants of a 16th century religious sect. I fell out with them as a child because they were geocentrists who insisted that heaven was at most 15 miles up, while I knew that rockets were flying to the moon and taking as long as you'd expect to get there! Discussion was subsequently impossible, so I can't say any more about their beliefs than I already have. Eventually I discovered the CofE :-)
 
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :
 
I said 16th century, I meant 17th.
 
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :
 
The point I was making, is that - as I understand it - and I'm ignorant here so don't ask me to justify this, google it - thinking now is that our own consciousness is not as unitary as we intuitively feel/believe it to be. So where's any problem with God being likewise?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Yes. A good point.

If we are made in the divine image, why not?

Being three distinct hypostasis that are still one has repercussions for social acceptance of variety and of ecclesiology too.

Why must the church be the same all over the world? It is one by nature of its base in the one God (one substance)- yet difference is okay (three hypostases).

Unity in diversity is a particularly trinitarian theology.

And one of the reasons I think Anglicanism is an expression of divinity. It tries to hold unity in diversity. [Smile]

Difference may be more "unholy" in Greek monism.
 
Posted by Tabernacle (# 17393) on :
 
Unity in diversity huh?

Right.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
The point I was making, is that - as I understand it - and I'm ignorant here so don't ask me to justify this, google it - thinking now is that our own consciousness is not as unitary as we intuitively feel/believe it to be. So where's any problem with God being likewise?
No problem at all. But we are not three (or more)
persons.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Well no; but we are not the same, er, species that God is either. Sort of like being a reflection of him in a lesser dimension, the way a square is of a cube. Flatland is good on this.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well no; but we are not the same, er, species that God is either. Sort of like being a reflection of him in a lesser dimension, the way a square is of a cube. Flatland is good on this.
It wasn't my analogy - but I agree with you, we are a sort of reflection of God, made in God's image.

I do not think God is made up of three separate persons, and I don't see the need to jump through hoops to explain such. Father, Son and Holy Spirit describe characteristics of God imo.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Well, take out "separate" and I think you've got the Trinitarian position described there. Three persons, but not separate. For humanity, of course, "person" always goes with "separate." well usually...
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
When Jesus promised the Holy Spirit for the disciples he said that he was going to send another counsellor/comforter/paraclete.

That word 'another' means another 'of the same kind.' The Holy Spirit is of the same kind as the Son but is not the same 'person'.

Jesus also spoke of 'him' in referring to the Spirit - he could have said 'I'; he could have said when I come I will lead you into all truth, had the Spirit and the Son been the 'same'.

He also spoke of himself and the Father and said 'we'. Had Jesus been the incarnation of God as one unity all incarnated as you say, why would he say 'we'?

So, Father and Son are 'we', The Holy Spirit is 'he'. That suggests to me three persons who are of the same kind. Not one divine person.

[ 04. November 2012, 13:24: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Once again we are treading beyond the economical to the eternally ineffable with mere words it seems.

God is revealed as a being of beings. A synergistic gestalt. A mystery.

And even if that is so, it is heresy. Whatever we say about God is. Which includes ALL of scripture, ALL dogmata. Which must be embraced, accepted in all of the dogmatic, the exclusive, the excluding. To no end but inclusion of the other. Of those who declare themselves our enemies.

And I'm a late a very grateful convert to Trinitarianism.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Once again we are treading beyond the economical to the eternally ineffable with mere words it seems.

God is revealed as a being of beings. A synergistic gestalt. A mystery.

And even if that is so, it is heresy. Whatever we say about God is.
Unless they are words that have been given to us by revelation - words we may use at God's command.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
What command? What words? What meaning?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I think the problem is the term "person".

When we say that God is Three persons, we have to be remember that how the term "person" is understood differently from our modern, individualistic conception. "Person" in the context of the Trinity denotes "One in a relationship."

The Church's worship and discipline declares that you can't understand the Father without the Son, nor can you understand the Son without the Father. You also can't understand the Holy Spirit alone, for who is he, but the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

It isn't that the Church says "You must believe in the Trinity or else." It's even more, it's "You can't believe in the Trinity and do full justice to the truth of the Christian revelation." You cannot understand Jesus Christ without the Father, and you cannot understand the Father without the Son. Jesus Christ reveals the Father, and the Father in turn, glorifies the Son, and commands all creation to worship him as God.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
do a bit of biblical research for yourself.
Foul. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they haven't done any biblical research.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus also spoke of 'him' in referring to the Spirit - he could have said 'I'; he could have said when I come I will lead you into all truth, had the Spirit and the Son been the 'same'.
Well, he did say "Behold I am with you until the end of the age." And then he left. But he sent the Spirit.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And even if that is so, it is heresy. Whatever we say about God is.
Unless they are words that have been given to us by revelation - words we may use at God's command.
Surely by that logic all translation is an abomination.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I'm fine with that Gwai. As for interpretation!
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, if one agrees with Newman, 'Firmly I believe and truly, God is Three and God is One' then God's very nature is Trinitarian and so one would necessarily be 'missing out' if one didn't believe and engage with that.
I think the Trinity is a useful metaphor, and being a metaphor is not true. The human makeup seems to tune in to threes a lot. So it is a useful number for a lot of things.

What does the phrase "God's very nature is Trinitarian" mean when God is the only example of a trinitarian nature we have?

For me, the value of the concept of a trinity is that God is God of relationships, and that people are in God's image when they are in relationship with others, themselves, and with God.
Spirituality is not a "Jesus and Me" thing or private and not public, but "you and me and God all together." YMMV.

[ 05. November 2012, 01:55: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And even if that is so, it is heresy. Whatever we say about God is.
I'll go with that as heresy here is simply opinion or approximation.

You aren't getting your jollies by calling someone else's beliefs a heresy.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think the problem is the term "person".
Yes.

St Augustine disliked the word when he was expounding his understanding of the doctrine. But he said it was better than nothing.

Some word was necessary to facilitate theological conversation.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

When we say that God is Three persons, we have to be remember that how the term "person" is understood differently from our modern, individualistic conception. "Person" in the context of the Trinity denotes "One in a relationship."
Well the Cappadocian fathers actually combined the word person (prosopon - mask) with the word hypostasis to make an individual ontological reality.

They saw the unity and definitions of the persons of God as coming from the father and expressed in a system of flow where all worked together, whereas Augustine expressed the three persons as defined by relationships to each other. A bit different.

In the east, the son and spirit are more like God's "arms" whereas in the west they were much more kind of egalitarian like.

Something like that......I've actually got an exam on this next week. Two thousand years of trinitarian theology shoved into a two hour exam. [Ultra confused] [Eek!] [Help]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And I'm a late a very grateful convert to Trinitarianism.
So am I. When thinking of concepts beyond the grasp of the human mind, we are best in accepting what is hinted at in Scripture, developed in the early Church, and accepted by all mainstream Christian churches. Even if it's only what we can grasp of reality, it's an effective working model.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabbas62:
Historical Christianity has been confirmed as essentially Trinitarian since the 4th/5th Century Councils settled the issue out of controversy. Which is why the historical beliefs of Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants concur on this.
I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm courting heresy here, but I have a small problem with the word "essentially" as used here. The 14th century Bishop of Thessaloniki, St Gregory Palamas, said that it's important to distinguish between God's essence and His energies. His essence being unknowable to human reason. We know God only be His energies. So it seems logical that, if we can't know God's essence, we can't know that He is essentially Trinitarian.

But in the way He creates us, saves us and sanctifies us, He comes to us as a Trinity. So these are the energies by which we can know Him. I think this is the most we can say with any degree of confidence. God is beyond our reasoning, and great minds, in the light of human experience of the Incarnate God, have done what they can to put Him into words we can understand.

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sephirot
Nobody picked up on this, but Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, a 15th century Italian philosopher, learned Hebrew and studied Kabbalah, partly to convert Jews, by proving that their own mystical tradition reveals both Trinitarianism and the divinity of Christ. The 10 sefirot are considered to be atrributes of the one God. The supernal triad, at the top of the Tree of Life are Keter(crown), Chockmah(wisdom) and Binah(understanding). It is through the creative energy of Chockmah that all is made, and through the nurturing energy of Binah that it is sustained. Pico della Mirandola likened the supernal triad to the Trinity.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."

I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
Christianity.
 
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."

I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
You would lose the profound concept of God, in the nature of his very being, living in eternal indivisible community.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."

I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
Christianity.
You're not selling it to me...
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
You would lose the profound concept of God, in the nature of his very being, living in eternal indivisible community.
Again... why must it be a trinity to give me that?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
But it's the wrong question. "What do we lose without the Trinity?" is Bulveristic. We don't believe in the Trinity because of all the wonderful benefits we accrue therefrom. We believe in the Trinity because we think it makes the best sense of all the data.
 
Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :
 
Yes. What you would miss out on is an accurate assessment of reality.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."

I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
Christianity.
You're not selling it to me...
[Disappointed]
No. I'm not surprised.

One thing that may be helpful here is to ask youself what/who you think Jesus is in relation to God.

Trinitarian theology is tightly linked to Christology.

The Holy Spirit is usually a later look in and never the main focus in disucssions.

So ask yourself what/who you think Jesus is and then the whole trinitarian thing might become clearer.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Historically, I think trinitarian theology is inevitable in relation to liturgy. One of the first things I learned in seminary is that classical Christian theology begins with the liturgy of the Church. The theological rationale follows as justifications or explanations of the worship of the Church. The Trinity was not an idea that suddenly popped up in a single church father's head.

The early Church did worship Jesus Christ. Now of course we could debate about whether or not early Christians "really" believed that Jesus was equal to the Father. There were patristic writers, later deemed orthodox, who probably veered towards subordinationism, hesitating reluctantly to equate Jesus Christ to Theos. Yet, I think that if the Church Fathers were adamant that Jesus was not divine, they would have stomped on any slightest sign that veered in that direction. Christianity emerged out of Judaism with its staunch monotheism, it would not be out of the ordinary to simply proclaim that Jesus was "just a man."

But they didn't. They ascribed the term "Lord", a term traditionally ascribed to YHWH, to Jesus. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus exercised several functions of YHWH, principally forgiveness of sins and control of the natural world. In the Johannine literature, Jesus is called "Word of God", "Bread of Life", "Light of the world", titles denoting divinity. In the Book of Revelation, the writer ascribes terms like "Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last", titles ascribed to YHWH in Isaiah to Jesus. Revelation specifically mentions God and the Lamb sharing a single throne, indicating equal honor and due veneration to both.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@PaulTH

There's a difference between seeing Trinitarianism as essential to Christianity and seeing it as saying that the essence of God is knowable.

How the Cappadocian Fathers produced the Trinitarian paradigm requires a fair bit of historical reading but they were certainly all Orthodox in the sense of believing that God is unknowable in His essence.

I appreciate that's pretty abstract. Part of the problem is that Trinitarian belief does not define God; rather it provides a framework of wonder about the ways He has made Himself known.

It arose out of deep contemplation ("theoria") rather than profound logical analysis (leading to "theory"). Sometimes I think that Western Christianity has been confused about that distinction ever since.

I promise to get back to further unpacking when back from holiday!

[ 08. November 2012, 08:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In the Johannine literature, Jesus is called "Word of God", "Bread of Life", "Light of the world", titles denoting divinity.
John also has Jesus frequently saying "I Am" in a manner that is clearly intended to indicate more than simply a current state of being. This is especially clear in John 8:54-55, where Jesus says "Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am." That his hearers heard this as equating himself with YHWH is made clear by their reaction: gathering rocks to stone him.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabbas62:
There's a difference between seeing Trinitarianism as essential to Christianity and seeing it as saying that the essence of God is knowable.
I agree, and have no problem with this. My natural instinct has always been to believe that in His essence, God is ONE, simple Spirit. From the Lateran Council IV, as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (202) we have

quote:
We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.
"One essence, substance or nature entirely simple." I am perfectly compatible and comfortable with this explanation.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The Trinity is the consequence of believing the Bible is true.* The Church reads in the Bible that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins, and that the Word was God, and knows that Jesus is God. Yet it also reads of Jesus praying to the Father and being with the Father in the beginning, and it knows that there must be a relationship between the Father and the Son.

This is all a Mystery, it cannot be denied. We can hardly say how both can be true. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to say at all, so we have this word as a sort of place holder- Trinity- which allows us to maintain both these assertions we find in the Bible. Think of it as "X" in an unsolved (and unsolvable) algebraic formula. We KNOW the formula obtains, even if we don't know what X is.


*Which is to say that one believes that the apostles have really (and truly) experienced Jesus and faithfully handed that experience on to the Church.

[ 09. November 2012, 02:43: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
If it is a metaphor, then it is not true, but a useful picture.

If it is true, then we have only a limited understanding of what the Trinity is.

My preference is to see it as a metaphor. The trouble with that for me, is that I don't know what is being used as the metaphor. It should be something more than the clover-leaf IMO.

Perhaps I should move to it being true that God is a Trinity, and that some pictures give us a little bit of insight into what that might mean. It is very elusive. Words fail to explain it IMO. It is better to ponder it than to fight over it.
 
Posted by Quizmaster (# 1435) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Historical Christianity has been confirmed as essentially Trinitarian since the 4th/5th Century Councils settled the issue out of controversy.
This is where the Romans decided to tell people what to think instead of allowing discussion and interpretation. Many people have been telling others what to think ever since.

In the modern day the Chinese and North Korean governments tell their people what to think. Most of us would support the free thinkers who do not conform.

[ETA Codefix, DT, Purgatory Host]

[ 09. November 2012, 18:00: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
At the risk of sounding like a broken record.......read Larry Hurtado's 'Lord Jesus Christ'. He literally blows the argument that the Trinity was an invention of the Christian councils out of the water. He is incredibly thorough, well researched and and as far as I can see presents the best and most water tight argument since Christianity began. If you read him as an historian, it's fascinating and enlightening. If you read him as a Christian his material is inspiring and faith changing. If you read him as a curious atheist he presents a certain challenge. He's horribly overlooked as a scholar, but really well worth the effort and easy to understand. There are moments when you read him and you think to yourself - 'Well thats been staring me in the face all these years, why haven't I noticed that before'. I've gushed about him before on....well, pretty much every Trinity thread since I boarded and I've outlined some of his arguments in some detail so I won't bore you again; but in essence he makes an incredibly strong case for a Trinitarian understanding of God in the Christian tradition and he takes a very different angle from the notion that it was a Christian council invention. Rarely should one ever say such things, but that book changed a lot of my own faith and I think if it had a wider readership it would certainly help to tighten up the weakness of Trinitarian theology in western Christian traditions.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The line between metaphor and mystery is that we (in Catholic Christianity) assume that God's relationship to humankind in the Bible actually reflects the inner life of God. That's the problem with the modalist heresy. It sees three persons in the Bible, but then says "Well, that's what God looks like to us, but that isn't what God is really like."
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Zach

Where precisely does it say " Three persons in the Bible"?

Sorry ignore that. I misread you.

[ 09. November 2012, 10:53: Message edited by: shamwari ]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Fletcher Christian:
read Larry Hurtado's 'Lord Jesus Christ'
I've read this book by Hurtado, and it was a major stepping stone on my way to accepting the Trinitarian position, which I'd previously found difficult. Among other things, he demonstates that worshipful devotion to Jesus as God , was there from the first days of Christianity, and wasn't something that developed over a period. I would agree with FC that Larry Hurtado is an underrated theologian who deserves to be read more, and I couldn't recommend this book more highly.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
IMO Trinitarianism is an essential component of Christianity, because it rests on the proposition that "he who has seen me has seen the father." It provides a ballast to Christian theological speculation: that statements about God that are not compatible with the God revealed in Jesus Christ, however true they might prove to be, are not Christian. Unitarianism, for example, is not Christianity.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Good point Kwesi.

From my point of view all Trinitarian statements have one value which is to induce a sense of awe, wonder and mystery. Worship without these is pathetically inadequate and hardly possible.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
The God revealed either side of Jesus, Son and Spirit at least and above Jesus in the Father's wrathful penal substitutionary atonement is not compatible with the God revealed in Jesus Christ.

(Which of you guys was it? This year or last, mortified at my pragmatic defense of that very God the Killer?)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I agree with fletcher christian about the historic roots of Trinitarian belief i.e. that they go back a long way and most certainly pre-date the councils.

What is also true is that there were lots of variations of understanding in the early church and much controversy about whether these were consistent with the teaching of the Apostles. No doubt also that John's gospel is key very early evidence of belief in the divine personhood of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The early evidence (pre-dating the councils by a couple of centuries) that the variations were regarded as misleading and injurious to faith is found, most obviously in "Against Heresies".

What is clear from the second century writings of Irenaeus (you can certainly spot it in Against Heresies) is that he saw Jesus and the Holy Spirit as divine persons, saw the profound importance of John's gospel in the apostolic inheritance. I just don't think he "joined up the dots" (as the Cappadocian fathers did later, for example.) His trinitarian understanding, though implicit, was not fully articulated.

So for these reasons, and others, I think it is wrong to see Trinitarianism as a fourth century invention. It was a clarification after profound reflection - but the building blocks were there from very early on.

It seems also proper to argue that these arguments over truth and meaning became part of various struggles over power and authority within the church; that battle certainly was part of the backdrop to the work of the councils.

As I said earlier, studying early church history (rather than caricaturing it) can illuminate this subject rather well.

I plan to write another post on the abiding value of the belief for worship and understanding.

[ 11. November 2012, 07:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Go for it, Barnabas62 ...
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
As far as I recall there are third century documents that use the word 'Trinitas' which is more than simply joining up the dots I think.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."

I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
Christianity.
You're not selling it to me...
[Disappointed]
It's not there for me to sell it to you, or anyone else. It's for you to accept, freely, like everything else He offers.

(btw, I never thought a trivial dig at the JWs would start this. Must be more careful with throwaway lines in future)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
A promised post.

On current value for worship, the terms we use for expressing how God has made Himself known to us;

Father of Creation;
Son, Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord
Spirit; the Lord, the Giver of Life; the indweller

provide a wonderful, rich and varied source of worship. The God who made the Heavens and the earth. The God who made us. The incarnate God who shows us how to live and is with us to the end of time. The crucified and risen God who is for us. The God who is in us, who teaches and convinces about "all things".

Trinitarian belief serves as a reminder of of all the above, saying further that it is the same God who brings us awe and wonder in these different "expressions" of Himself. When we worship the Three in One in Spirit and in Truth, we worship God in His fullness - and know that we do not know it all.

By doing this, our worship becomes both richer and better balanced than it would be if we focused primarily on one of these three "expressions". Somehow saw one as more important than the others. That has often been a failing in visible congregations. The Transcendent dominates the Incarnate and Indwelling. The Incarnate dominates the Transcendent and Indwelling etc. Or you get "two out of three" combinations.

So far as understanding is concerned, Trinitarianism keeps us, necessarily, humble. A reminder that it is both stupid and blasphemous to think we have God all figured out. In all its paradoxes it is a constant reminder that God is "above and beyond our understanding" (thinking of a line from a song by Tim Hughes), hidden in entirety from us "only by the Splendour of Light" as a much older hymn puts it. To know that we really do know in part, but that which we do know is awesome and wonderful produces a humble reverence. Not only for God in worship. This reverence may then spill over into reverence and respect for life, for the world, the universe. For one another.

I am not saying that these benefits are based on a precise interpretation of the meaning of the Trinity; nor that some of them, maybe all of them, might not be arrived at by different considerations. That would be assuming far to much. But I am saying that Trinitarian belief has, within itself, the power to guide us in these very helpful and fruitful ways. It is as rich and creative in its content today as it ever was.

[ 12. November 2012, 17:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's not there for me to sell it to you, or anyone else. It's for you to accept, freely, like everything else He offers.
Even if freely offered it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what I'm accepting.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's not there for me to sell it to you, or anyone else. It's for you to accept, freely, like everything else He offers.
Even if freely offered it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what I'm accepting.
What you are accepting is the Truth revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Even if freely offered it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what I'm accepting.
The scriptures. There is this perception that the Trinity is a foreign doctrine imposed on the Bible by Greek philosophers. This isn't the case. It was a doctrine the developed to draw out the propositions that Church discerned in the scriptures.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
While we may be accepting something we may find in the scriptures, that is not the same as accepting the scripture (and what that means, I am sure, varies enormously among shippies that call themselves Christian).
Conversely, not accepting the trinity does not mean that the scriptures are not accepted (again with the proviso that there are various understandings of this.)
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
While we may be accepting something we may find in the scriptures, that is not the same as accepting the scripture (and what that means, I am sure, varies enormously among shippies that call themselves Christian).
Conversely, not accepting the trinity does not mean that the scriptures are not accepted (again with the proviso that there are various understandings of this.)
All of that is only true if the scriptures are absolutely subjective.

Cue argument about subjectivity versus objectivity.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I don't think that's true, Zach82. In the Arian controversy, the Arians demonstrated an excellent understanding and interpretation of scripture. Here's an excerpt from an online article.

quote:
Homo Ousion (same substance) vs. Homoi Ousion (like substance):

The sticking point at the Nicene Council was a concept found nowhere in the Bible: homoousion. According to the concept of homo + ousion, Christ the Son was con + substantial (the Roman translation for the Greek, meaning 'sharing the same substance') with the Father.

Arius and Eusebius disagreed. Arius thought the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were materially separate from each other, and that the Father created the Son.

Here is a passage from a letter Arian wrote to Eusebius:

"We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest."
Link to article

I'm with those who believe that you cannot find a scriptural reason for preferring "Homo Ousion"(same substance) to "Homoi Ousion" (like substance).

It's possible to see Arians simply as unorthodox Trinitarians of course.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The point of contention of the Arian heresy was whether the Son was a creature or not. Which is something we can look to the Bible to discern.

The Arians didn't like the word homoousias because it meant that everything that applied to the Father applied to the Son- including being eternal. Most of the proponents of homoiousias joined the Catholic party when homoousias was clarified to exclude modalist interpretations.

[ 12. November 2012, 19:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
No need to re-run the Arian controversy here, Zach82. It's not particularly germane to this thread, but it is germane to a view that scripture per se can be said to determine the fully developed Trinitarian Creed. Separate thread, if you like?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I really have no desire to debate the Arian heresy- I am arguing for a particular relationship between dogma and scripture, and was showing how the Arian controversy played in to that. If the Bible shows us that Jesus is God, what conclusions must we accept from that? The Arians, for all their biblical proofs, really failed to own up to those conclusions.

[ 12. November 2012, 20:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
All of that is only true if the scriptures are absolutely subjective.
That's a non-sequitur.

(And I am not interested much in historical niceties about Arian or other purported "heresies".)
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Well, your use of scare quotes around the word heresy explains why you find the proposal that there might be objective content in the bible a non sequitur. Your lack of interest in heresy makes me wonder why you post in a thread about the Trinity at all.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
[blue hat]
It's interesting how very frequently you introduce other topics or re-express others' statements with a slant to allow you make a pejorative comment.

So: quotes have to be scare quotes; metaphors you turn into subjectivity; you make a narrow deduction that the use of '"heresy"' implies a belief that there can be no objective content in the Bible.

I'm used to this black or white approach from some of the fundamentalist evangelicals I grew up with, it's just a surprise to see it here on the ship from an RC.

[/blue hat]

[ 13. November 2012, 00:40: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I really don't know what you are talking about. I didn't bring up Arianism, I didn't connect subjectivity to metaphor, and scare quotes really were used.

I suppose they could have just been pointless quotation marks, though. My bad if that was the case.

Edit: Oh, and I'm an Episcopalian.

[ 13. November 2012, 00:51: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I plead guilty to bringing in Arianism. Wish I hadn't!

(I'm sure Zach's view re Arianism and scripture isn't right BTW, but it derails the thread to continue the debate here.)
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
(I'm sure Zach's view re Arianism and scripture isn't right BTW, but it derails the thread to continue the debate here.)
I am sure you are wrong, but I won't bring it up either. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I really don't know what you are talking about.

and scare quotes really were used.

It seems like intentional misunderstanding.

Not all of us get scared by quotes. Some of us see them as conveying some other meaning.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
It seems like intentional misunderstanding.

Not all of us get scared by quotes. Some of us see them as conveying some other meaning.
Shall I take it from the way you edited my words that the other charges are dropped? Blue hat and all that.

You know best why you used quotation marks, and instead of accusing me of maliciously misinterpreting you why don't you explain what you meant?

It seemed to me that you put heresy in quotation marks because you didn't want to accept that terminology yourself. Which is, by the by, what scare quotes are.

Did you even know what scare quotes were before you accused me of intentional misinterpretation?
 
Posted by wstevens (# 17424) on :
 
I have been a Christian of one form or another for about 17 years and I have never understood the doctrine of the trinity and cannot honestly say that I believe it. I can accept it as a hypothesis, but cannot go further than that and cannot use the word 'believe' to describe my attitude towards it. I take a generally critical and questioning approach to other doctrines too, but of them all the doctrine of the trinity is probably the one I doubt the most. I think doctrine is a lot less important than "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and working out how to put that into practice. The Nicene Creed (which I don't say) always makes me wince because it doesn't contain anything about that.

Referring to the original question "What does one miss out on by rejecting trinitarianism"

In my opinion the main thing missed out on would be close fellowship with those Christians who can't or do not want to have fellowship with non-trinitarians. My church attendance during the time that I have been non-trinitarian has been in rural middle-of-the-road churches, Quaker meetings and liberal Anglo-catholic churches and I have not found it to be a significant problem in any of those.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
I have been a Christian of one form or another for about 17 years and I have never understood the doctrine of the trinity and cannot honestly say that I believe it. I can accept it as a hypothesis, but cannot go further than that and cannot use the word 'believe' to describe my attitude towards it. I take a generally critical and questioning approach to other doctrines too, but of them all the doctrine of the trinity is probably the one I doubt the most. I think doctrine is a lot less important than "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and working out how to put that into practice. The Nicene Creed (which I don't say) always makes me wince because it doesn't contain anything about that.
If the only thing that matters is practice, I wonder why you would bother with this church thing at all. It seems to me you would fulfill your understanding of the Gospel far better by working in a soup kitchen on Sunday morning.

[ 13. November 2012, 18:44: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
You obviously need to do more work to understand wstevens and realise why your seeming misses the mark.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
You obviously need to do more work to understand wstevens and realise why your seeming misses the mark.
Latch, could you be a lamb and bugger off while we discuss the topic of this thread? Your baseless accusations of malice and ignorance aren't helping anything.
 
Posted by wstevens (# 17424) on :
 
A good question Zach82.

The reasons that I can come up with to explain why I go to church at all, given that I think practice is more important than doctrine, are:

1. Because church provides reminders or hints that "loving thy neighbour as thyself" is worth doing - i.e. that the universe is set up so that love is somehow foundational. I see the resurrection (assuming that it happened) as a validation of that.
Taking a precautionary approach, I would rather err on the side of behaving as though love is foundational than behaving as though it isn't. I think I am probably less likely to regret (or face judgement for, if there is such a thing) behaving in the former way than in the latter way.
2. To learn from like-minded people (some of the parables are consistent with the idea that practice is more important than doctrine).
3. To make friends and for mutual support - I am not naturally inclined towards selflessness and it helps to have encouragement and expectations.
4. To support it so that future generations know about the Gospel.

I currently attend a liberal Anglo-catholic chuch - it was a close decision between them and the Quakers.

(I didn't claim that practice is the only thing that matters, only that I think doctrine is less important - and this is because I find it difficult to see how we can know anything with any degree of certainty (except scientific knowledge where we can sometimes come close to certainty - e.g. we know what water is, what birds are etc...)).
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
Welcome to the Ship, wstevens!

I like something Seeker963 posted a few years ago in regard to the ideal relationship between doctrine and love:

quote:
And I believe that the purpose of doctrine is to elicit love, not the other way around as so many people would seem to have it.

 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
A good question Zach82.

The reasons that I can come up with to explain why I go to church at all, given that I think practice is more important than doctrine, are:

1. Because church provides reminders or hints that "loving thy neighbour as thyself" is worth doing - i.e. that the universe is set up so that love is somehow foundational. I see the resurrection (assuming that it happened) as a validation of that.
Taking a precautionary approach, I would rather err on the side of behaving as though love is foundational than behaving as though it isn't. I think I am probably less likely to regret (or face judgement for, if there is such a thing) behaving in the former way than in the latter way.
2. To learn from like-minded people (some of the parables are consistent with the idea that practice is more important than doctrine).
3. To make friends and for mutual support - I am not naturally inclined towards selflessness and it helps to have encouragement and expectations.
4. To support it so that future generations know about the Gospel.
Thank you wstevens, well put - these are pretty much my reasons too (and the fact that I love the people there)
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0