Trinity Doctrine FAQ

[RedOctober]

[line]

Trinity Doctrine FAQ

1. What is the Trinity Doctrine?

No easy answer because even most theologians will tell you its a difficult concept that can only be mastered by the most "devout". But in a nutshell its the belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal; one God, three persons.

2. When did it first appear?

The first mention of the word "Trinity" was by a Latin Theologian named Tertullian (155-230). It was formally defined and placed as official church doctrine in the year 325 at the Council of Nicea. And since Constantine made "Christianity" the official state religion, by preponderance, official Roman Law.

3. Why did they have a council to define it officially?

Constantine made Christianity the official state religion, therefore eliminating most adverse issues the Roman Empire and the religion had. Problem is, a state religion needs to have cohesive, static and comprehensive set of official doctrines. Having dynamic philosophies and varying theological beliefs threatens to undermine a state religion and creates even more infighting of an already politicized government. And given that the early church was indeed dynamic, it posed a problem.

(Background: It was common for the Roman Empire to "absorb" the religion of the peoples they conquered, thereby making it more difficult for them to find a rally point to revolt. But since absorbing the Jewish and Christian religions was not possible due to the belief in one deity, it seemed to forever be an issue. The Jewish people were eventually removed and scattered, but Christianity wasn't confined to one people and proved more difficult. But by making Christianity part of the Empire and at the same time "tolerating" all other religions, this eliminated most of the associated problems, or so they thought and hence the council was convened).

4. What were some of the different definitions that were being debated?

Unknown. No known official or unofficial records of the council exist, aside commentaries by the "victors" of the debate which may or may not accurately express the counter arguements. It is known that the debate did continue decades after the council, however, all other views were silenced via excommunication, persecution, book burnings, etc. Eventually due to this practice the councils official definition prevailed.

5. Constantine presided over the council, how much influence did he have over the decision?

Most supporters of the doctrine make the claim that he had little influence. While more scholars make the case to suggest otherwise. Hard reality, due to no conclusive documentation of the council, its unknown. However, if you the Emperor of Rome and rule by decree and are used to having your opinion matter the most, what do you think?

6. Was Constantine a Christian?

Most theological minded will say yes and refer to the famous battle at the Milvian Bridge to claim Rome in which Constantine claimed to have seen the cross in the sun and a voice saying "In this sign you shall conquer", and a "Christian Historian" also makes a sketchy claim that Christ in a dream told him to use it against his enemies. (Thereby making this the first known documented case that Christ favored war and thus contradicts his teachings).

Historians and Archeologist now tend to agree he was not Christian, particularly since he wasn't baptized Christian until he was on his deathbed and during his life, he attended both Christian and Pagan services. Also there were plenty of political motivations for "adopting" this Christian and Pagan symbol. He had a large contingent of Christians in his army...this motivated them. He also had a large contingent of Pagans...this also motivated them. Also the fact he saw it in the Sun, a symbol to refer to Christ by Christians (Christ was considered the "light", the Sun was the biggest and best know source of it, hence the symbolism) of that era and it was also worshiped by pagans, nor does Constantine claim that the voice was from Christ, only the historian does. Nothing like having your leader say he had a divine revelation to conquer in your God or God's symbol.

7. Did the council represent the whole of Christendom?

No. Obviously anyone who believed that Christianity should NOT be a state religion did not show. And of course many still had a wary view of Rome, particularly after being persecuted for a few centuries. Most who showed up more than likely were on board with the idea of Christianity being a state religion and thought they could further their dogma's.

8. What were the main Biblical references used in the council that supported the doctrine?

The Bible was not used. It did not exist in much of its present form until about 70 years after the council. And its stated that the task of creating comprehensive set of books to be used in/for religious instruction was first chartered at this council, hence definitively no Bible, it was only the beginning of the debate on which texts were considered "sacred". Also its widely believed that several documents NOT included in the present Bible were also used in support of the doctrine. Each varying view had their own documents and "books" to support their theological view. Obviously, when the Bible was finally put together, the books included were the ones that best supported any approved doctrines. Its a sad testament to the Trinity Doctrine that despite that, its support can still be easily questioned with the very books of the Bible they had hoped to put an end to the debate.

9. Do Molokans (Leaper and Jumper sect - from here on, Molokan will refer to that sect) accept the Trinity Doctrine?

Officially and historically the answer is no.

10. I heard that the Spirit and Life book supports the Trinity Doctrine, is that true?

Nonsense. The Spirit and Life book does support a "trinity" but not the Trinity Doctrine. The doctrine assumes the trinity as co-equal and co-eternal. In MGR 11:11:1-11; "We, His true worshipers, faithfully acknowledge Him (God) always and forever; that the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit are personally one in Deity, but in power and authority are not equal." Also the first book of MGR states that Christ pre-existed time and creation, but did not exist until the Father "birthed" him, and no, its not the same as creating him.

Also from Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;

11. What are some of the Biblical references that they are not co-equal?

There a number of references that can be used and using the Bible could debate this forever. But two of the most obvious:

John 5:22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,

John 5:26-27 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man.

If they are co-equal, then how is it one needs to be given or granted authority? And of course Christ himself says it best in John 14:28: You heard me say to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. That's Christ's own words and for me ends the debate. His word holds way more weight than anyone else, particularly a doctrine that was formulated by a politically charged council. Side note, it is quite amusing however to watch those who uphold the doctrine attempt to explain away and dismiss this blatant statement by Christ.

12. Why then do those who support the Trinity Doctrine ignore or jump through hoops to redefine Christ own assertion that the Father is greater than him?

Because is dangerous, in their view. To call into question the first officiated doctrine calls into question all of them and everything else associated with it. The very fabric of the institutionalized religions would become unraveled, it would be akin to calling the American Revolution illegal and therefore looking to rejoin with Britain today. Remember this is accepted by all of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the vast majority of Protestantism, this would undermine all of their religious authority. Next, many nations across the globe essentially paint themselves as being in accord with sanctioned Christianity, this undermines their authority as well. Christianity would return to a pre-Nicea era, a religion that supported no government, no centralized authority and varying Christian groups with diverging theologies with agreement that salvation is a gift, in other words, Christianity would return to its roots. Without standardized doctrines you cannot control people through religion. Just not going to happen with so much power and influence at stake.

13. What is the Biblical support for the Trinity Doctrine?

Could go on forever on them. But I'll use the two used most often.

John 14:9-11 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.

This is almost always the first verse used in such a debate. And its a very weak one to use to make their point. The cited passages could also mean "oneness" in nature and intent. Like a huge protesting crowd is one in their opposition to something. Furthermore, Phillip would know that from the Old Testament scriptures no one has/can see God, so he wasn't asking to see God "physically" either.

John 8:56-58 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad."
The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

This is often used with Exodus 3:13-14 where "I am" is also used. But there is one fatal flaw with this argument. (NOTE: Read an article discussing this passage. What was of interest was "I AM" was used twice and a literal translation is I Am I Am...and not I Am who I Am, the first I Am is a masculine case and the second a feminine case, thought I bring that tid bit here)

Matthew 17:3-5 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli'jah, talking with him.
And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli'jah." He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."

Also see Mark 9:2-8 and Luke 9:29-37

One only has to read the Books of Moses in the Old Testament to already know that Moses had a very defined relationship with God. And of course when Elijah fled to Mt. Sinai he had heard the voice speak to him as well. So begs the question, why did they have to be introduced to Christ? And why did the Father call him Son? Thereby reinforcing that they are not co-equal? The co-equal argument using "I am" falls flat on its face here. So why would Christ say "I am", well, he is the Son of God and God created everything through him as its stated in the Gospel of John, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are co-equal.

Some references of the preexistence of Christ: Proverbs 8:22-30; Proverbs 30:4; John 3:13.

Another passage that discusses I Am is Mark 14:61-62

But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

So when Jesus said, "I Am" it was to imply he was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, and who is seated on the right. Note, not the center and there is no implication of co-equal.

14. Why is it anyone who disagrees with the Trinity Doctrine called a heretic?

Well no duh! Institutionalized religions have made fear mongering their method of choice for keeping the masses in line. If you don't believe XYZ then your doomed for and eternity to hell! You salvation is in danger! (despite having nothing to support such a claim or have any such authority). If you choose not to accept the Trinity Doctrine, congradulations, you're not a lemming. But, expect to be name called, labeled, etc. by many, price you pay for not going with the flow.

15. Why are there so many bumper stickers that say "Jesus is God, Read the Bible"?

Welcome to the world of fundamentalism. One thing fundamentalist have discovered that by stating Jesus the Christ is the Son of God or Jesus is Lord, it does not enforce the idea of "co-equality". But rather, it enforces the idea that they are not co-equal and hence this presents a problem to the man-made Trinity Doctrine. By stating "Jesus is God" they get around this problem and of course by inserting "Read the Bible" it suggests it has legitimacy as most will not do so and those who do, may feel intimidated that they have not come to the same conclusion and hence to "fit in" will accept the explanations given by those who accept the doctrine. But its important to note, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus the Christ ever call himself explicitly God (in the context as the Father)nor does he every declare himself equal to the Father.

16. Is this FAQ biased?

Well of course, even those who support the Trinity Doctrine are heavily biased and those neutral often are just looking to discredit any faith in general. Accepting or rejecting is a choice you will have to make. I'm not going to say however your salvation will depend on it or you will go to hell, I can make no such claim since I am not Christ. He as only empowered me to forgive like everyone else.

17. In John 5:1-18 it implies that the Father and Son are equal, this would seem to uphold the Trinity Doctrine and contradict Christs own words in John 14:28.

If you just reference up to verse 18, yes it does imply that. However, when you read the rest of the chapter:

Quote:[17] But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working still, and I am working." [18] This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called [color="orange"]God his Father, making himself equal with God. [/color] [19] Jesus said to them, [color="aqua"]"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. [/color] [20] For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel. [21][color="aqua"] For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. [/color]

Quote:[color="aqua"][22] The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, [23] that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. [/color][24] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. [25] "Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Quote:[color="aqua"][26] For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, [27] and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. [/color][28] Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice [29] and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. [30] "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, [color="aqua"]because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. [/color] [31] If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true; [32] there is another who bears witness to me, and I know that the testimony which he bears to me is true.

The following verses after eighteen immediately contradict the assertion they are co-equal in authority, if they were indeed co-equal, Christ would not need any authority from the Father. So begs the question, what does the word "equal" imply?

Perhaps the best way to explain this is to use a modern example. In an agency relationship, the agent works on behalf of a principal. The agent can enter into contracts, represent, etc. as if he was the principal him/her self. But only as so far as authority has been granted to them and nor are they greater than the principal. In Biblical times, the first born son was often an "agent" for his father. For example, if business required travel and the father was needed at home, he could send his son to take care of the business. Those negotiating with the son over business could conclude he was "equal" to the father in that regard. Hence, verse eighteen is not a contradiction but an understanding of an accepted practice.

When Christ identified himself as the Son of God, he essentially stated he was the representative for the Father. This of course meant his authority was above the Temple Priesthood who often implicated they were the chosen representatives. It wasn't just what Christ was saying, it also indicated that the Temple Priesthood's power, prestige, etc. was at an end, thus they were not likely to go down without a fight. Remember, prior to Christ to ask forgiveness of sin, one had to bring a sacrifice to the Temple and have a priest petition on your behalf.



18. Some say that the Trinity Doctrine cannot be understood rationally and is a spiritual understanding, is that correct?

This hearkens back to question number one, and the irony of such a statement makes me a chuckle a bit.

On one hand, they state that the Trinity Doctrine must be accepted without waver but on the other then state it must be understood spiritually, which requires meditation and a mystical understanding which often can bring differing ideas, but you can't accept those ideas because its heresy. Does that make sense?

But to give some merit and address this point, spiritual or mystic interpretation has validity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mystic

Quote:[color="aqua"]The tradition of Christian Mysticism is as old as Christianity itself.[/color] At least three texts from the New Testament set up themes that recur throughout the recorded thought of the Christian mystics.

And of course Apostle John and Peter (as well as others) are considered Christian Mystics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...st_Century

However, usually a spiritual understanding is in regards to a parable or symbolism. Nowhere in the Bible is a spiritual or mystic understanding in direct opposition or reverse to express statements. To say that the Trinity Doctrine is a spiritual/mystic understanding on co-equality is like saying Thou shalt not steal actually means its OK to steal from a spiritual/mystic view. A spiritual or mystic understanding fits with the overall theme, not run contrary to it.

Clinging on to a verse here and there and stating Christ is co-equal to the Father in authority and power (and a spiritual/mystic understanding) while ignoring direct and explicit statements Christ himself made that he is not co-equal is not a spiritual understanding, but rather forcing a man made doctrine to conform.


19. What about Isaiah 9:6? For to us a child is born,to us a son is given;and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Does this imply the Trinity?

On the surface, yes. But here is the issue on this prophesy, is it referring to events that have happened or yet to come? The part "government will be upon his shoulder" is very telling. At what point in the New Testament does Christ assume rulership of the world and his Kingdom is established? Last I checked there were still several hundred countries and not one leader looks very "Christ like". In addition verse 5 which precedes it is a prophesy to the ending of war and then of course verse 7 and the part that says "and of peace there will be no end" even further alludes to Christs second coming. Thus the only part of the prophesy has been fulfilled (a son is born) and more of it is yet to come.

Furthermore, what is the context of God in this passage? What is very interesting to note, Mighty is used instead of Almighty. Why? Well it gets down to the Hebrew, the word here is "El Gibbor". El does mean "God" but Gibbor doesn't necessarily mean "Mighty". It can also be translated as and often used to refer to the strength, heroic greatness, or might of someone in the sense of having a great or renowned reputation. Another issue, "El" is not always used to denote God, in the Old Testament it is also used to refer to powerful leaders, judges (Exodus 21:6), angels (Psalms 8:5) just to name a few. And I am amazed that even scholarly supporters of the Trinity Doctrine even state that Isaiah 9:6 cannot be used to support the Doctrine. Primarily because the passage is descriptive and giving the attributes of the "son is born" and given that Christ is in the image of the Father, he would have his Fathers attributes. Thus, once again, what seems as support is not what it seems.

20. Why do those who uphold the Trinity Doctrine say its impossible to comprehend it?

They often use Isaiah 55:8

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.

As usual, its used out of context. Its referring to the wicked, not some quasi extra dimensional understanding. But this is verse is cited along with a large mountain of text and commentary that's designed to confuse the individual. All one has to do is read verse 7 right before it;

let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

One does not have to be on another dimensional plane to understand what Isaiah is stating.

But here is and interesting paradox from Matthew 22:37:

And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

How can you love something when it is impossible to be understood or to be known? Its very counter intuitive. But what really knocks down the myth that we are incapable of understanding God is from John 14

[6] Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
[7] If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him."
[8]

Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied."

[9] Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?
[10] Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
[11] Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.
[12]

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.

Verse 7 plainly states that you can know the Father. What concerns me about the Trinity Doctrine viewpoint of God being virtually impossible to comprehend, it is literally in direct opposition of the scriptures. And what are the scriptures if its not about God? Something to think about.

[RedOctober]

What some noted experts on the Trinity Doctrine state about it:

[line]

Trinitarian Millard J. Erickson - (Research Professor of Theology at S.W. Baptist Theological Seminary (Southern Baptist) in his book on the Trinity, "God In Three Persons"):

"This doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxes...It was the very first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church, yet is still one of the most misunderstood and disputed doctrines. Further, it is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture , yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith" (p. 11-12).



• Professor Shirley C. Guthrie, Jr. - (Trinitarian scholar, in his best selling book, "Christian Doctrine"):

" The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity . Neither the word "trinity" itself nor such language as 'one-in-three,' 'three-in-one,' one 'essence' (or "substance"), and three 'persons' is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy " (p. 76-77).




• Trinitarians Roger Olson and Christopher Hall - (In their book, "The Trinity"):

"It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. "The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the N.T. in the heat of controversy. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.)" (p. 1-2) .




• Professor Charles C. Ryrie - (Respected Trinitarian Evangelical Biblical scholar, in his well known work "Basic Theology" ):

"In the second half of the fourth century , three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity " (p. 65). "But many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts . The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . In fact, there is not even one proof text , if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons" (p. 89). "The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results... If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the deity of the Holy Spirit " (p. 90).




• Graham Greene - (Noted Catholic scholar):

"Our opponents sometime claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture...but the Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as the Trinity , for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels ."




• Professor Cyril C. Richardson - ("The Doctrine of The Trinity: A clarification of what it attempts to express"):

"I cannot but think that the doctrine of the Trinity, far from being established, is open to serious criticism , because of both the modern understanding of the Scripture, and inherent confusions in its expression. It is not a doctrine specifically to be found in the New Testament. It is a creation of the fourth-century Church " (p. 17). " But Philo (20 B.C. - 50 A.D.) introduces a second theme derived from Greek thinking , that God creates by his Word or Logos. From these observations it becomes clear that there is an essential ambiguity in Philo's thought , an ambiguity which we shall find running though trinitarian thinking " (p. 31-33). " The idea that the Logos is begotten by God, is his 'first-born', his 'invisible image' and so on, plays an important role in Philo , and whether directly from him or not, comes into Christian thinking . The Word is for Philo the intermediary between God and his action" (p. 34). Please note: Philo was a Hellenistic (Greek) Jewish philosopher and writer who taught the "divine Logos" doctrine. He mentions the Logos over 1400 times in his writings and refers to it as "a second God" and calls it " the mediating Logos ." He was born some twenty years before Jesus and was a famous writer before Jesus began his ministry. Philo lived in Alexandria, Egypt and there is no indication that he ever heard of Jesus . He got his idea of the "divine Logos - second God" from Greek philosophy and mostly the Greek philosopher Plato (428-348 B.C.). Professor Richardson says, "From our brief study of the New Testament material it becomes apparent that the symbols Father, Son, and Spirit do not constitute a genuine Trinity . In fact, there is no way to overcome the paradox that we must think of God both as one and as a society . There simply is no way in human thought to compose this paradox (p. 95). " My conclusion then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that is is an artificial construct . It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions if offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements , which are ultimately meaningless , because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms. Christian theology might be aided by abandoning such a procedure and by making clear the inadequacy both of the ambiguous terms and of the threeness into which its doctrines have been traditionally forced . There is no necessary threeness in the Godhead " (p. 148-149). Professor Richardson is writing as a dedicated Trinitarian but he admits, "much of the defense of the Trinity as a 'revealed' doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it" (p. 16).