Large Group #6: Understanding (but not Comprehending) the Trinity

Hey everyone! Sorry for being behind on large group posts (not sure who reads them, but hopefully they're helpful for those of you who do). We'll be getting #s 4 and 5 up soon hopefully. I hope midterms were good for you all :)

Monday night, our grad student brother Yan Choi led a theological discussion about the Trinity, providing scriptural passages and the Athanasian Creed for us to study (see full post for more info).

Why is it important to study hard-to-grasp doctrine like the Trinity? It's because we want to know how to properly respond to God (like how to worship, pray, etc.), and being able to do that requires us to know the important aspects about God. (A way to help us distinguish which aspects are the "important" ones is to think of the distinctive qualities of our God. For instance, we have a monotheistic belief, but we also have three parts in one God.)

When we worship, pray, hear the word, read the word--basically when we are relating to God--we are relating to the Trinity. Eg. when we pray, the the commonly accepted way is to pray to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. And we have knowledge, too, that the Holy Spirit is with us and teaches us how to pray.

So we know that understanding the Trinity is important, despite being hard to grasp. So read onward to get material on the Trinity and how we tried to wrestle with these concepts. (props to Yan Choi for the notes)

In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit—Understanding (but not Comprehending) the Trinity

Scripture Passages

Deut 6:4-5 (the “Shema”)

Phil 1:2

John 1:1-5, 14-18

Acts 5:3-4

Col 1:15-17

John 5:19-47

John 14:8-31, 15:26, 16:7-15

Mark 1:9-11

The Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; 2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. 23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. 32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. 34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. 35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. 36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. 37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; 38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; 39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; 40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; 42. and shall give account of their own works. 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Discussion questions

1.      In view of the Scripture passages and the Athansian Creed, how would you formulate the doctrine of the Trinity?

2.      What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?

a.       “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes of God’s self-revelation.”

b.      “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three independent divine beings.”

c.       “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are components of one God.”

3.      In what way are the following analogies accurate or inaccurate? Would you use them to explain the doctrine to someone?

a.       Ice, (liquid) water and water vapor

b.      The six faces of a cube

c.       The faculties of the mind: intellect, memory will

d.      Self-knowledge: the knower, the known, the knowledge

4.      What are the practical implications of the doctrine of Trinity?

Appendix: “Essence” (or “Being” or “Substance”) and “Person”

Essence. What does essence mean? As I said earlier, it means the same thing as being. God's essence is His being. To be even more precise, essence is what you are. At the risk of sounding too physical, essence can be understood as the "stuff" that you "consist of." Of course we are speaking by analogy here, for we cannot understand this in a physical way about God. "God is spirit" (John 4:24). Further, we clearly should not think of God as "consisting of" anything other than divinity. The "substance" of God is God, not a bunch of "ingredients" that taken together yield deity.

Person. In regards to the Trinity, we use the term "Person" differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an "independent individual" in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as "I" and others as "You." So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son as a "You," even though He regards Himself as "I." Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that "Person" means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an "I" and the other two as a "You." These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but "a form of personal existence other than a difference in being."[3]

By Matt Perman. © Desiring God Foundation. Website: desiringGod.org

Reading Materials

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity See also Wayne Grudem’s discussion in his Systematic Theology, which forms the basis for most of the discussion here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1.shtml An example of good religious journalism, particularly interesting in its discussion of the social implications of the doctrine.

http://www.theopedia.com/Trinity Valuable for its links to various Web resources. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here're some notes from our discussion (our attempts of answering the questions):

1) It's clear from the Scripture that there is some equivalence between the Father and the Holy Spirit (see Acts) and between the Father and the Son, yet at the same time there the Son is not the Holy Spirit (see John 14,15,16), and so forth. How mind boggling. They are all in each other, so they are all with each other.

Some analogies we came up with were: dots (an ice cream snack) in which there are distinctly different parts of the snack but they are each the snack and are in each other; we consist of three parts--flesh, soul, and spirit (or mind, soul, and body)--similarly God consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; ...

Let’s take a step back and think, what are the things in the Scripture which constrains our analogies? Because in the end, whatever is not in the Scripture is false. What is the unity aspect and what is the individual aspect? We looked again at the passages in John and Mark. It seems that the different parts of God are distinct at different points in time (eg. Jesus does something, Father says okay, the Counselor does something after that, etc.) they do different things and do not act the same. Furthermore, they have to all exist at the same time (refer to Jesus’ baptism), and they all have to be separate people.

The Colossians passage talks about how everything is in Jesus. He is the image of God, firstborn over all creation. They also say that in him all things are created by him and for him, so he must also be eternal. And in John 1:1, we can see that Jesus was not created.

This was really hard, so we moved onto number 2:

2a) This statement implies that God switches between three different states, but we know this isn't true because all three exist at the same time and all are eternal. They are not mutually exclusive.

2b) There's the issue with unity and how there is only one God, not three.

2c) In Bi1 we talked about emergent properties, the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. But the Father + the Son + the Holy Spirit =/= something greater when all three combine. They are each a part of the whole and are the whole. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Each has complete sovereignty and are not missing a part of the whole if you try to split them apart (which results with the idea of having components). Another problem is that our infinite God no longer becomes infinite if we think of him as having components which each having different qualities/characters.

Another fact we have to remember is that if you take just one of them, that person is still infinitely god and infinitely powerful. So think about Jesus: there isn't anything good or bad about being physically constrained; so Jesus can be physically constrained and God the Father cannot be physically constrained, but they can both be infinitely good and omnipotent.

We know that there is one God, and we know that the Father is God, the Son (Jesus) is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And in Colossians it says that the Son is fully God, so there is no division between them. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not each other. There are three persons, but there is only one God; each of these three persons are fully God. So the early fathers came up with one God with three different essences (see Appendix) (or maybe it was one essence in three different people? I forget). Also see Athanasian creed #36; the substance of God is God, they’re not different substances that you mix together.

When we talk about God being three persons, we’re not dividing God into three things. “Persons” refer to someone who can regard them as “I” and another as “you.” The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can relate to each other in different ways. Eg. Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son.

So is God schizophrenic? Yan Choi says it’s the opposite of that: you have three persons and one essence. (schizo is three essences, one person). And each person has different experiences. A good analogy for the unity of the trinity is the unity of the church, in which the church is in Christ and Christ in the church, so is also  the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in one another.

What does "in" mean? A part of God is not a subset of another part of God. We can say that they are representations of each other--that's one aspect of their relationship. When Christ says he is in the Father and the Father is in him, we can say that they have such a close relationship that one person can be said to be in the other. When Christ describes his relationship with the Church, he uses the analogy of a man and his wife; this may not be a perfect analogy for us to grasp, but it points to the aspect of the intimacy between the different parts of God.

The Holy Spirit is not a physical being, so he doesn't physically occupy space. When Jesus talks about sending the Holy Spirit to us, it is much the same as how the Father sent Jesus to us. Jesus says “I will send him to you, I will not leave you as orphans”; the important part is not the physical location but the presence.

That is much how the doctrine has been formulated in the past.

3a) You can have these three exist at the triple point. But even at the triple point, the solid, liquid, and gas forms are separate. You cannot say that the solid water is everything, the liquid is everything, etc. so that’s a problem. Another problem with all these material analogies is that they can't form relationships.

3b) It shows unity and diversity, but the fault is that they don’t relate to each other and each of them is not the whole thing, and even if you put all six sides together you only have a hollow cube (there’s a fourth thing you need?)

3c) Something Augustine came up with. The problem is that they’re not really persons. They do different things (information, processing information, and making decisions, respectively), but they're intangible. A nice thing is that they’re all kind of dependent on each other, but one thing is not the whole thing (but there isn’t really an analogy where one thing is the whole thing, unless you have something like entanglement or fractals)

3d) The ludicrous part here is that the “knowledge” part is not a person; the analogy does have an “I”, “you”, and “it” relationship, but the "it" part is not a person.

Something to keep in mind is when we say God is not physical, we mean that he is more than physical. We should stop thinking of God as an old man sitting on a throne somewhere

"Mystery" does not mean confusing, but rather something that was not known in the past and is known now.

Things that we can comprehend, we can control, and God is not something that we can control, so of course we should expect him to be "incomprehensible". It also leads to a proper sense of reverence, like when we approach him in our prayers. God is unapproachable, but we can approach him through his son, another part of the Trinity.

4) History time: Arianism is the idea that Jesus is not fully God; Sabellianism/modalism is the idea that God is in different modes/aspects and not three distinct people, and Nestorianism is the idea that there is a clear dividing line between Jesus in his manhood and Jesus in his divinity (ie. kind of saying Jesus was schizophrenic). Basically Nestorius did not want to say that Mary was the bearer of God. It became a very technical debate…

In our second large group last term (link here) discusses how Christ is both fully God and fully human, so we can automatically see how Arianism and Nestorianism is dangerous in how we approach Jesus. Sabellianism/modalism holds the belief that Jesus is a mode of God--each part is not fully God. It implies that there’s no meaning in having Jesus as our mediator, which is terribly important in our relationship with God the father, since our relationship with God the Father is mediated through God the Son, and our relationship with God the Son is mediated through God the Holy Spirit.

The conclusion of our discussion is written in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of this blog entry. Sorry for the super-long entry, but if you do read up to this point, I'd like to thank you for your time :)

God bless!