Trinity

[Superdog]

Is the doctrine of the trinity a man made concoction that muddles up the nature of God, or is it a divinely revealed truth about God passed down to the Church of God/

[dr spock]

The doctrine of the trinity is a man-made accomplishment based on the false presumption that the Son of God is really God the Son.

[Acumen]

Is there any reason to suppose divine revelation?

[thedefender]

Elluminati, Don't hold your breath. . .


Anyway, to answer your post Superdog, yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is of man-made origins; it is how Christians explain the nature of God as revealed in the Bible. Conversely,  the truth of the Trinity is not man-made: it is an actual, literal reality, and without it Christianity cannot stand, because not believing in the Trinity means that Christ is a liar. True Christianity is not, and was not founded on a lie but on the Truth of the word of God rightly divided. In other words we Christians do not believe in the "Shell-god" theory.

Blessings,

Derrick the defender

[thedefender]

Further, in oneness theology, Christ can not be more than the figurative Son of God since   the "son of God" is actually God the Father.

DD

[Acumen]

DD,

Further, in oneness theology, Christ can not be more than the figurative Son of God since   the "son of God" is actually God the Father.

I think the traditional oneness position is that the "son" is a reference to the "man" Jesus miraculously conceived by the Holy Ghost (God). 

Adam is also called the son of God and so God's angels.  Interestingly enough, I find a single commonality between these three groups.  Adam was created by the direct agency of God when he was "molded" from the dust of the earth.  Angels were created by God sometime prior to the earth's formation (Job 38:7).  And Jesus' miraculous conception was by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit.  Even Paul emphasizes Jesus' Sonship by the miraculous rebirth from the chains of death by the direct agency of God the Father.

-Acumen

[gluadys]

Further, in oneness theology, Christ can not be more than the figurative Son of God since   the "son of God" is actually God the Father.

I think the traditional oneness position is that the "son" is a reference to the "man" Jesus miraculously conceived by the Holy Ghost (God). 

I'll have to learn more about the oneness position.

What I know is that in regard to the Trinity, Athanasius warned against two errors:
1. dividing the substance
2. confounding the persons.

The idea that the "son of God" is actually God the Father is an illustration of the second error.

That the appellation of "son" refers to Christ only in his human nature may be an instance of the first error.  It seems to reject the Chalcedonian understanding of the unity of Christ's person, but I would need to see more on this before coming to that conclusion.   

[Acumen]

Gluadys,

That the appellation of "son" refers to Christ only in his human nature may be an instance of the first error.  It seems to reject the Chalcedonian understanding of the unity of Christ's person, but I would need to see more on this before coming to that conclusion.   

Being raised as a Oneness Pentecostal, I believe the Oneness movement waffles on the definition of the term "Son of God."  To them, the term "Son" essentially emphasizes, in a special way, Jesus' human nature, and therefore select passages that seem to indicate the Son was ignorant of his return, or that the Son questioned who had touched him seems like a fairly reasonable theory.  However, I believe they overemphasize the humanity of the Son in order to draw a line in the sand between them and traditional Trinitiarians, who believe that the Son is really "God the Son" come in the flesh.

I believe that both parties have essentially missed the mark.  I believe that the term "Son" encompasses the divine and human dimensions of Jesus, but the term is used more precisely in terms of messiahship.  When the Father speaks from the heavens and says, "This is my Son whom I am well pleased," He is identifying a savior for the people, not just highlighting a unique blend of the human and the divine.

I think Paul reveals an interesting perspective, in a couple places, that refers to Jesus as the Son of God because of the resurrection.  The book of Hebrews lines up nicely with this idea when it refers to the Son's being made a little lower than the angels, but crowned with glory because of his death and resurrection.  To me, it seems as though the term "Son" is, in fact, a title in reference to the function of an appointed savior that had appeared to achieve a victory for humankind.

-Acumen     

[gluadys]

Being raised as a Oneness Pentecostal, I believe the Oneness movement waffles on the definition of the term "Son of God."  To them, the term "Son" essentially emphasizes, in a special way, Jesus' human nature, and therefore select passages that seem to indicate the Son was ignorant of his return, or that the Son questioned who had touched him seems like a fairly reasonable theory.  However, I believe they overemphasize the humanity of the Son in order to draw a line in the sand between them and traditional Trinitiarians, who believe that the Son is really "God the Son" come in the flesh.

Thanks for the info.  I am a traditional Trinitarian who, unlike some, takes the humanity of Jesus very seriously.  I am used to getting hammered for over-emphasizing his humanness at the expense of his deity.  I don't think one has to abandon the doctrine of the Trinity to accept that in his incarnation the Son experienced human limitations. That is what 'kenosis' implies. 

I believe that both parties have essentially missed the mark.  I believe that the term "Son" encompasses the divine and human dimensions of Jesus, but the term is used more precisely in terms of messiahship.  When the Father speaks from the heavens and says, "This is my Son whom I am well pleased," He is identifying a savior for the people, not just highlighting a unique blend of the human and the divine.

I think Paul reveals an interesting perspective, in a couple places, that refers to Jesus as the Son of God because of the resurrection.  The book of Hebrews lines up nicely with this idea when it refers to the Son's being made a little lower than the angels, but crowned with glory because of his death and resurrection.  To me, it seems as though the term "Son" is, in fact, a title in reference to the function of an appointed savior that had appeared to achieve a victory for humankind.

-Acumen     

All this makes a lot of sense.  The original preaching of the apostles was that Jesus was the promised Messiah, confirmed as such by being raised from the dead. 

[Acumen]

Gluadys,

I don't think one has to abandon the doctrine of the Trinity to accept that in his incarnation the Son experienced human limitations. That is what 'kenosis' implies.

Right, but not all trinitarians buy into the kenosis theory.  It seems to be a protestant phenomenon.

[gluadys]

Gluadys,

I don't think one has to abandon the doctrine of the Trinity to accept that in his incarnation the Son experienced human limitations. That is what 'kenosis' implies.

Right, but not all trinitarians buy into the kenosis theory.  It seems to be a protestant phenomenon.

With qualifications, perhaps.  There are a lot of fundamentalist protestants who certainly do not buy into it.  So maybe we should limit that to non-fundamentalist protestant.

I am not familiar with the Catholic approach and how it would differ on this point. 

[Acumen]

Gluadys,

I think the Catholics stay away from the topic in general.  There are some conveniences with keeping it a mystery.   

In my opinion, the kenotic theory puts the trinitarian in a more difficult bind.

[gluadys]

Gluadys,

I think the Catholics stay away from the topic in general.  There are some conveniences with keeping it a mystery.   

In my opinion, the kenotic theory puts the trinitarian in a more difficult bind.

Would you like to elaborate?

[gluadys]

The term "mystery" is often and easily misunderstood as something that is not comprehensible.  However, the true meaning of the word "mystery," as it is used in Catholicism, merely means something that "surpasses the powers of natural reason" (Catholic encyclopedia.)

So in regards to the Trinity, the concept is indeed a mystery, but not incomprehensible.  Any and every theology is steeped with mysteries otherwise it wouldn't be a theology.

Very good point.  In scriptures, mysteries are usually mentioned in the context of them being revealed.  It's kind of like "Hey, here is something we didn't know before."  It is still a mystery, but it is also something we know. 

[Acumen]

Glu,

Would you like to elaborate?

I haven't heard any Catholic give a definitive answer to the issue of "kenosis."  It seems almost entirely a Protestant phenomenon.  Previously, I stated that the Catholics stay away from the topic to be coy.  My point is that kenosis draws attention to the inherent problem of the incarnation, which is not only mystery in Catholic terms, but appears incomprehensible if people take the time to mince and digest it.

The concept of kenosis, an emptying of oneself, has been understood to treat the issue of the apparent lack of omnipotence and omniscience in the person of Jesus during his earthly years.  Jesus, according to the scriptures, grew in wisdom and in stature.  He asked who touched him when walking among a mob of people.  And he stated that the "Son" didn't know the time of the second advent.  Each of these passages indicate a limitation of knowledge.  The kenotic theory explains these limitations in a couple of ways.  One theory is that "God the son" willingly emptied his divine attributes as a natural consequence of being human.  And another theory is that "God the son" didn't displace his divine attributes, but rather willingly limited Himself during His earthly ministry.  Both of these theories have a difficult time explaining how God can self-empty or self-limit certain divine abilities, such as knowledge, for the sake of the incarnation.

[gluadys]

Both of these theories have a difficult time explaining how God can self-empty or self-limit certain divine abilities, such as knowledge, for the sake of the incarnation.

Well I must be a bit dense* then, as I do not understand the nub of the problem.  It might be if Christian doctrine was that the Trinity was incarnate.  But that is not the case.  It is the Son and only the Son who is incarnate. 

*Wouldn't surprise my father.  He often commented on the discrepancy between my level of education and my level of comprehension.  "How can someone so educated be so dense?"   

[Acumen]

Glu,

Well I must be a bit dense* then, as I do not understand the nub of the problem.  It might be if Christian doctrine was that the Trinity was incarnate.  But that is not the case.  It is the Son and only the Son who is incarnate.

I think the fact that ONLY God the son was incarnated is precisely the problem because if not "all" of God was incarnated, then are we not left with a demi-god of sorts?  Again, this is precisely the problem with kenosis, the emptying of divine attributes.  Catholics have wisely avoided the kenotic theory -- they describe it as a protestant phenomenon.

*Wouldn't surprise my father.  He often commented on the discrepancy between my level of education and my level of comprehension.  "How can someone so educated be so dense?"

Sometimes the problem with posting is that the poster understands what he intends, but the reader isn't starting in the same place.   

-Acumen

[gluadys]

Glu,

Well I must be a bit dense* then, as I do not understand the nub of the problem.  It might be if Christian doctrine was that the Trinity was incarnate.  But that is not the case.  It is the Son and only the Son who is incarnate.

I think the fact that ONLY God the son was incarnated is precisely the problem because if not "all" of God was incarnated, then are we not left with a demi-god of sorts?

Not according to the Chalcedonian understanding of Christ as fully human and fully divine. 

Nor according to Athanasius' understanding of the unity of substance in the Trinity. 

No Person in the Trinity is all of God, but each is fully God.  So none is a demi-god. 

[Acumen]

Glu,

Acumen:  I think the fact that ONLY God the son was incarnated is precisely the problem because if not "all" of God was incarnated, then are we not left with a demi-god of sorts?

Glu:  Not according to the Chalcedonian understanding of Christ as fully human and fully divine.  Nor according to Athanasius' understanding of the unity of substance in the Trinity.  No Person in the Trinity is all of God, but each is fully God.  So none is a demi-god.

I see no difference between descriptive terms of "fully" and "all of" God.  Perhaps you can give the definitions of each to help me understand?

-Acumen

[gluadys]

Glu,

Acumen:  I think the fact that ONLY God the son was incarnated is precisely the problem because if not "all" of God was incarnated, then are we not left with a demi-god of sorts?

Glu:  Not according to the Chalcedonian understanding of Christ as fully human and fully divine.  Nor according to Athanasius' understanding of the unity of substance in the Trinity.  No Person in the Trinity is all of God, but each is fully God.  So none is a demi-god.

I see no difference between descriptive terms of "fully" and "all of" God.  Perhaps you can give the definitions of each to help me understand?

-Acumen

Tall order.  Any analysis of Trinity is a tall order and I make no claims to much expertise in the area.  Maybe we really need to ask first if you understand the term "substance" as used in the Nicene Creed.

As simply as I can put it "all of" refers to quantity, while "fully" refers to quality or substance.

As a triune being God consists of three parts known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so no one of these is "all of" God quantitatively.  But since the substance of God is indivisible, each is substantially fully God. i.e. there is no aspect of divinity which exists in one Person to the exclusion of the others.  No one Person of the Trinity is "missing" anything of the divine nature, such that it would be less than God when considered in isolation from the other Persons. 

One might use the common analogy of water in its three states of gas, liquid and solid.  Each is distinct, but is ice any less H2O than liquid water?  Is it somehow "demi-water" because of its solidity?  Certainly not on a chemical (substance?) level.