Trinity

[Jon Twitchell]

The following paragraph is taken from a [Church website... a church that is also a Church of the Nazarene.]

The Trinity
We believe in one living God who has complete power and is wise, good and pure. We believe He is loving, forgiving and faithful. We believe God created all things. We believe this one God has three expressions: The Father (God), The Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. (John 1:1-2; 4:24; 5:18; 10:30)

I realize that it is difficult to speak carefully about the Holy Trinity without treading on dangerous ground, but it seems to me that saying "God has three expressions" comes dangerously close to modalism.

Am I out to lunch on this one?

[Ryan Scott]

Nope. That's a tricky statement, of course, as you said, pretty much any statement less than three volumes is going to be tricky.

(By the way, the only reason I didn't post a simple "nope" with no explanation is because the software said it was too short a post to be acceptable.)

[Charles W Christian]

It is a bit awkwardly worded, but I don't think that Gold Creek is trying to teach modalism.

I wonder, would it be offensive to e-mail them and say, "Hey, your statement on the Trinity sounds a little like it's leaning toward modalism"??

If I thought it would do some good, perhaps I'd try that approach, but I don't think it would. Also, with their numbers, I don't know if any district or general officials would point that out, either -- even if they WERE teaching modalism (which they're not), and that's the tough part of this whole conversation probably....

Was that too "rant-ish"? Probably so.... Unintentional, though. I've got much love for my brothers and sisters up the road at Gold Creek....

Charles

[Ramesh Deosarran]

The doctrine of the trinity is not a puzzle. A puzzle we put together and bring to completion. All the pieces are connected and we have a perfect whole. The trinity is a mystery. God does not say I am three or we are three. God does say I am here. He is here by the Incarnation.
(God) (reveals Himself) (to us). This is the doctrine of the trinity. He revealed Himself to the disciples who believed in ONE God. When Jesus called them, they followed a Man and NOT God. There was something powerful about Him before they followed Him. After the resurrection they became aware that they had been in the presence of God. After Pentecost they became aware that God dwelt within them. This is the same God they encountered in Jesus. This is the same God who created the universe.

[Glenda Harvey]

I think if you read it in context with the rest of their statements their belief in the Trinity is in keeping with traditional teaching. I do think the wording is could cause one to wonder.

[Steven Martinez]

I think it is fair to ask questions in regard to the statement because they claim Jesus was the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity that lives within us. One could conclude that they come close to the heresy of modalism in that they seem to imply that Jesus is no longer the Son or that God has moved on and has now become the Holy Spirit. The greater issue is that many in American Christianity have a modalistic view of the Trinity.

[Garth Lahana]

The following paragraph is taken from http://www.goldcreek.org/index.php?page_id=48.



I realize that it is difficult to speak carefully about the Holy Trinity without treading on dangerous ground, but it seems to me that saying "God has three expressions" comes dangerously close to modalism.

Am I out to lunch on this one?

I read their statement of faith from the link you provided Jon, and from how I read it, they are trinitarian in their belief, I quote:

The Son
We believe Jesus Christ was God’s only son born of the Virgin Mary. We believe Jesus was fully man and fully God. We believe He lived on Earth and was crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of all people. We believe Christ rose from the dead, went to Heaven and now intercedes for the body of believers to God the Father. (Matthew 28:5-9; Luke 24:4-7)
The Holy Spirit
We believe the Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who lives within us, giving us power to live a holy life and guiding us to truth. (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6)
If they were modalists, would they refer to to Jesus now interceding for us to God the Father? (I am not farmiliar with modalism, and had to look it up btw)

[Jon Twitchell]

Thanks for all the feedback on this...

We had a church on our district who (for a period of time) had published their own "Statement of Beliefs" on their website. I had some good dialogue with their pastor... (not that I think it accomplished much).

Anyway... I may have overreacted...thanks for your comments.

[Jamie Wayne]

The following paragraph is taken from http://www.goldcreek.org/index.php?page_id=48.



I realize that it is difficult to speak carefully about the Holy Trinity without treading on dangerous ground, but it seems to me that saying "God has three expressions" comes dangerously close to modalism.

Am I out to lunch on this one?

Compare that statement to the CotN Article I, where it states that God is "triune in essential being" - HUGE difference, don't you think?

"Three expressions" comes way too close to modalism for me without any further clarification.

The greater issue is that many in American Christianity have a modalistic view of the Trinity.

Sadly, I think that you're right, but I wonder why that's the case.

Is it that the Trinity isn't important enough to teach, or is it that the teachers aren't sophisticated enough to teach it correctly?

[Ramesh Deosarran]

I realize that it is difficult to speak carefully about the Holy Trinity without treading on dangerous ground, but it seems to me that saying "God has three expressions" comes dangerously close to modalism.is one?


It seems that in their statement they are using the personal analogy – human consciousness to explain the unity of God. The opposite of this view is tritheism. This view uses the social analogy. We cannot perfectly explain the Trinity. Thus, we have an imperfect analogy trying to explain a perfect God.

However, if in advocating the deity of God, they are saying that Jesus is the manifestation of God, then it would be different. The extreme to this position would be the view held by Sebellius – that there are three successive manifestations of God.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Is it that the Trinity isn't important enough to teach, or is it that the teachers aren't sophisticated enough to teach it correctly?

Or is it that no one understands it well enough to find a way to express it in clear enough language so that it actually makes a difference in how people live their lives as Christians? Perhaps the problem is in trying to contain God's gracious action of self-revelation within a creedal formula.

It is interesting that virtually all of the historical creedal confessions about the Trinity were attempts to define what it wasn't, already becoming apparent in the Definition of Chalcedon and overt in the Athanasian Creed (although directly against Arianism, the Nicene Creed is worded more positively). Maybe such approaches are better at establishing parameters than precise definition. Perhaps that is why in all his writings the closest Paul ever came to a definitive statement was to say that “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself.”

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Jamie Wayne]

Perhaps the problem is in trying to contain God's gracious action of self-revelation within a creedal formula.

Isn't that what the Church of Christ has done in not affirming the Creeds?

Yet, what foul lines does one draw without the Creeds?

[Dennis Bratcher]

Isn't that what the Church of Christ has done in not affirming the Creeds?

Yet, what foul lines does one draw without the Creeds?

I did not suggest that we should not have the Creeds nor that we should not affirm them. I was suggesting that we understand what they actually affirm in context and what their limitations are. As human documents, they are not absolute.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Jamie Wayne]

I did not suggest that we should not have the Creeds nor that we should not affirm them. I was suggesting that we understand what they actually affirm in context and what their limitations are. As human documents, they are not absolute.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

I agree; the Creeds really only establish what the boundaries of orthodoxy are - they certainly are not attempts at precisely defining all there is.

However, in the case of God revealing Himself in three ways, or however it was originally worded at the beginning of this thread, it might serve them well to affirm the boundaries of the Creeds, and, when we teach Trinitarian orthodoxy, maybe we should teach what those boundaries are, while acknowledging that there may be multiple views that fall under the umbrella of orthodoxy.

That being said, if modalism is common within Christendom, can we agree that teaching the Trinity by affirming the Creeds would help to establish those very boundaries? Perhaps modalism (or tritheism, for that matter) wouldn't be nearly as common if that were the case?

I can't tell you how many times people refer to "God and Jesus" as if Jesus weren't included in the very definition of God; of course, what they usually mean is "the Father and the Son" instead of "God and Jesus," but isn't it quite revealing when there is such a lack of theological sophistication?

[Ramesh Deosarran]

I think we need to keep it simple. God is One. We often say, "You" are God. We look at creation and see God the Father. In the Incarnation we see Him as Redeemer. At Pentecost, we see the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier. We can distinguish God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. However, we cannot separate them and maintain the unity of God.

[Eric Vail]

I think we need to keep it simple. God is One. We often say, "You" are God. We look at creation and see God the Father. In the Incarnation we see Him as Redeemer. At Pentecost, we see the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier. We can distinguish God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. However, we cannot separate them and maintain the unity of God.

There are some very helpful 4th century theologians you could read to help tidy up some of your statements. One of the most helpful ideas that came out of that time was the idea of inseparable operations. For the easiest place to start in your reading, look at Hilary's On the Trinity book 7 (book 9 is helpful too); you can find it in free online editions of the NPNF. Augustine's sermon 52 is a short--probably too short--intro (it is also the earliest place he explores his psychological analogy for the Trinity).

If you can find an english translation of Didymus the Blind's On the Holy Spirit (I know Lewis Ayers translated it, but I don't know that it's been published yet), that gives a good overview as well from the eastern perspective (he was in the line of Athanasius). It is 50 pages well worth meditating on.

These authors help us develop a grammar by which we can talk about all three persons operating personally yet inseparably in anything the Triune God does.

Lastly, the first 41 questions of Thomas Aquinas' Summa are gold for anyone who wants to meditate on the divine nature and the doctrine of the Trinity. Even if you disagree with him on issues of western Trinitarian theology--e.g., the Spirit being fully passive, being Gift, being the love shared between the Father and Son, etc.--it at least will give you a solid foundation in tightening up how you articulate this doctrine.

Best wishes in your studies and ministry!

[Ramesh Deosarran]

There are some very helpful 4th century theologians you could read to help tidy up some of your statements.


What statements (specifically) are you referring to?

[Eric Vail]

We look at creation and see God the Father. In the Incarnation we see Him as Redeemer. At Pentecost, we see the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier.

These were the ones that the idea of inseparable operations (with divine simplicity) preclude.

The readings I suggested were not aimed at you specifically. I was trying to offer them to anyone who wanted resources for study that might help them in their own thinking (they've helped me in mine). I apologize for not making that more clear. Right now on several of these theology threads there has been lots of talk about the doctrine of the Trinity in general and about modalism. The sources I listed are great in helping us reflect through the mystery of our beliefs and avoid some of the pitfalls (whether in local churches' statements or in posts) that I've seen discussed thus far.

This is not an easy (nor safe) doctrine about which to give concise summaries. However, I was reminded yesterday when reading Matthew Levering's Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology that perhaps simplicity is not what we should be aiming at. Our reflections should be (since they can be) nothing less than to the utter limits of our God-given rational capacities. One reason is that our God deserves us to be speaking thoughtfully/well about him, not saying things that are logically contradictory, etc. Even so, our greatest passion in our reflecting should be to know God; to be conformed into his likeness through study and reflection on him. it is out of that sacred encounter that we live (and the living itself can be a means of further encounter/transformation).

I intentionally used the term "meditate" on these texts in my previous post, as much as anything, as a reminder to me in my own studies today to remember to first get to know my Lord before asking what must I do.

Again, I wish you and everyone God's richest blessings in your studies and ministry.

[Jamie Wayne]

This is not an easy (nor safe) doctrine about which to give concise summaries. However, I was reminded yesterday when reading Matthew Levering's Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology that perhaps simplicity is not what we should be aiming at. Our reflections should be (since they can be) nothing less than to the utter limits of our God-given rational capacities. One reason is that our God deserves us to be speaking thoughtfully/well about him, not saying things that are logically contradictory, etc.

Amen!

[Ramesh Deosarran]

The readings I suggested were not aimed at you specifically.

This is a public forum. So, I do not take anything personal. I think it is important to keep it simple for the people who listen to us. In this context it is fine to get philosophical/intellectual in our historical, biblical, and theological findings.

You suggested some reading. However, it is vital to keep it simple. After doing all the reading and research it is significant for us to communicate with everyone listening to us.

People want to know that we have ONE God and not three gods. They want to know that the Trinity is a unity.

[Crystal Lutton]

People want to know that we have ONE God and not three gods. They want to know that the Trinity is a unity.I agree. What helps when sharing with a Jewish audience as we do each week (who have often rejected Christianity based at least in part on the fact that we claim Jesus to be God and that, to their understanding violates the Shema) is the understanding that Echad (One) is used to express plural unity.

I do believe that the eternal plural unity of God must be weighed in with the importance of this issue when considering the entire historical discussion--which ultimately comes down to us trying to express how we understand God rather than how or who he really is. Too often ime expressions of the Trinity end up sounding like 3 gods sitting on Mount Olympus and conferring on everything :(

[Hans Deventer]

I agree. What helps when sharing with a Jewish audience as we do each week (who have often rejected Christianity based at least in part on the fact that we claim Jesus to be God and that, to their understanding violates the Shema) is the understanding that Echad (One) is used to express plural unity.

Do you also use "Elohim", which I understand is also plural?

[Crystal Lutton]

Not exclusively, but yes. Many of the blessings we do each Shabbat are in the Hebrew first and then the English.

[Jamie Wayne]

Do you also use "Elohim", which I understand is also plural?

The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) uses Eloheynu (Our G-d), which is also plural, so every time a Jew utters the Shema, the plural form is used.

p.s. - I've stepped away from using "G-d" since so many of you here didn't find it appealing, but for the sake of our Jewish friend, I will use it again in this context.

[Billie Goodson]

There are some very helpful 4th century theologians you could read to help tidy up some of your statements. One of the most helpful ideas that came out of that time was the idea of inseparable operations. For the easiest place to start in your reading, look at Hilary's On the Trinity book 7 (book 9 is helpful too); you can find it in free online editions of the NPNF.

Link to Book VII (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.vii.html)

Augustine's sermon 52 is a short--probably too short--intro (it is also the earliest place he explores his psychological analogy for the Trinity).

Augustine on the Trinity (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.html)



If you can find an english translation of Didymus the Blind's On the Holy Spirit (I know Lewis Ayers translated it, but I don't know that it's been published yet), that gives a good overview as well from the eastern perspective (he was in the line of Athanasius). It is 50 pages well worth meditating on.

Could not find a good source for this.


Lastly, the first 41 questions of Thomas Aquinas' Summa are gold for anyone who wants to meditate on the divine nature and the doctrine of the Trinity. Even if you disagree with him on issues of western Trinitarian theology--e.g., the Spirit being fully passive, being Gift, being the love shared between the Father and Son, etc.--it at least will give you a solid foundation in tightening up how you articulate this doctrine.

Best wishes in your studies and ministry!

Summa (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.toc.html) Question 30 is excellent on this topic.