Since our homeschool students are currently studying the Trinity, I was reminded of this article, originally posted November 22, 2006.
I was thirty years old before I actually encountered anyone who called themselves Christians and denied the Trinity. I had heard that such people existed, but outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I didn’t know who they were. Then, when we moved to this small town in North Dakota, we met a character who had recently left the same church that we began attending. He was a self-styled teacher with a very overpowering personality who had managed to gather a small group of very committed disciples and formed his own “church,” renting a church building in a neighboring town. A few years ago, this little cult built its own facility just a few blocks up the street from our house.
This post is, in a nutshell, what I told one of them when I had the occasion to discuss it, along with a few comments to Trinitarians who explain it badly.
There is one true God, eternally existent in three persons.
There is only one God. In no sense are there three.
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4, and quoted again by Jesus in Mark 12:29). “[H]ath not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10) God is always spoken of as singular. God is always “he,” never “they.” He reigns over the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of the gods. In Luke 18, Jesus is addressed as “Good Master.” His reply: “Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God” [bold type added].
God is three distinct persons. In no sense are they one. All three exist simultaneously and eternally.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is never the Son or the Holy Spirit.
The Son is never the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is never the Father or the Son.
The Trinity is revealed in Scripture from the very beginning. In Genesis 1:2, “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Farther along in verse 26 we find God talking to himself: “Let us make man in our image” [bold type added]. Who was God talking to? Why the plural pronouns? Four thousand years later, John the Apostle wrote of Christ: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1-3) The Son was present in the beginning, and participated in creation.
“Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. … And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. … He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.” (Matthew 26:36,39,42) Who was Jesus praying to? Was he putting on an act, going through the motions of prayer in order to set an example for his disciples, as some have said? If so, what does that tell us about him? If true, it tells us that God is an actor, a deceiver, a manipulator who plays with our minds like faith-healers and “revival” preachers. No, Jesus, being God, is incapable of any kind of deceit. He was praying to his Father, as one distinct person to another.
The Trinity is probably most clearly demonstrated at Jesus’ baptism: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16-17). Jesus was in the Jordan, the Holy Spirit descended upon him, and the Father spoke from Heaven—three distinct persons in three distinct places—simultaneously.
God does not appear at different times and places in different roles or modes. His triunity may not be compared to the way in which we fill different positions yet remain one person, as one man may be a son, husband, father, grandfather, employer or employee, etc., all at once. That is the Modalist heresy.
God also cannot be described as many Trinitarians have attempted to describe him:
The Trinity is not like an egg—yolk, white, shell.
The Trinity is not like an apple—skin, flesh, seeds.
The Trinity is not like water—liquid, solid, vapor.
The Trinity is not like time—past, present, future.
The Trinity is not like space—height, depth, width.
The Trinity is not any other metaphor you’ve thought of. I know, some of you can’t stand not having an explanation for everything. You are very creative and imaginative and love thinking these things up. Well, stop it! You almost persuade me to become a modalist. The Bible tells us quite clearly that God is triune. It does not even begin to tell us how that is so.
TrackBack URL: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1508
Share this post:
Posted in: Theology Proper
Link · 6 Comments · 0 TrackBacks
← Previous · Home · Next →
6 Comments:
#1 || 10·09·15··08:42 || Daniel
The problem with us is that we experience reality in terms of time and space, and God does not. The rules that govern creation necessarily influence and shape whatever concept of Trinity we are able to muster together. Scripture teaches that God is one existing eternally in three persons - but there is nothing in creation that reflects such a reality. In the absence of any fitting model, we are left to try and put together how such a thing might look if it were goverened by the laws of creation - and in doing so hopelessly distort the very thing we are trying to model.
I am satisfied with the truth that God is one God who exists in three persons, that is, I trust that this is so even though there is nothing in creation that can model this relationship.
#2 || 10·09·15··09:04 || David
We just finished with Sproul’s lectures on the Trinity this morning. It was interesting to learn that the original meaning of the word “person” lends itself best to a modalistic view. The example given was that of ancient stage players playing more than one role, donning a different mask for each. Thus, they would take on multiple personi.
Sproul concluded by saying that God is one substance, but three subsistances.
#3 || 10·09·15··12:41 || Daniel
Is that not the same as saying that God is one undivided substance existing as three real and distinct substances?
I prefer to write it that way because the inherent contradiction is more evident.
A contradiction that cannot be avoided now matter how one states the formula - for the formula is necessarily contrary to the order and rules of this creation. I wonder that so many try and frame it in language that sounds less contradictory.
Which is not to poo-poo Sproul. Subsistence is a theologicla term, and Sproul is using it accurately.
#4 || 10·09·15··15:52 || David
No. God does not exist. I know, I used the word several times in my post. I will have to rewrite it some time. Whether the rest of your statement is true, I suppose. Maybe. I don’t know.
To exist is to be in a state of change. God is in a state of being. Therefore, he does not exist, he simply is.
#5 || 10·09·16··10:37 || Daniel
I hope no one quotes you out of context
"God does not exist!" - David Kjos
#6 || 10·09·16··11:51 || David
I would love it if they did. It would give me a chance to show off how smart I are, or at least how good I can parrot those who is.
Comments on this post are closed. If you have a question or comment concerning this post, feel free to email us.