The Trouble with the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most contested of Christian doctrines. As you might imagine, any attempt to explain or describe God might be met with skepticism or disagreement or outright condemnation. This post is not an attempt at laying out a full explanation for the doctrine, which will come later. It’s simply an effort to get the doctrine ‘on the record’.
It’s worth noting that there’s a big difference between teaching on the Trinity and explaining the Trinity. To teach it, one only needs to go to the Bible verses where we see the Trinity in action. To describe the Trinity, however, is virtually impossible. One simple reason is that there are no parallels to the Trinity in nature. There’s nothing we can point to and say, “See that? God is just like that.” We’re left with something that’s more than a little mysterious. That doesn’t mean the doctrine is wrong, or that one can imagine the Trinity to be whatever feels right. We do have Scripture as a reference, and it’s important to teach what the Bible says.
The Basics of the Trinity
God is described in the Bible as the Father, as the Son, and as the Holy Spirit. At the same time, the Bible is abundantly clear that there is only ONE God. Each of the three “persons” is described as having relationship (interacting) with one another, and as being present before, and taking part in, creation.
Because of this, the doctrine of the Trinity can be explained “simply” in this way:
- The Father is God.
- The Son (Jesus) is God.
- The Holy Spirit is God.
- The Father is not the Son, nor the Spirit.
- The Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit.
- The Spirit is not the Father, nor the Son.
- There is only one God.
Clear as mud, right? While analogies abound in our attempts at explaining how this can be so, we have no natural analogues for this kind of three-in-one relationship. We have only the Bible to help us understand, and the Bible doesn’t usually lay out such things precisely. Suffice it to say that if anyone denies that one of the above items is true, their theological understanding of God would be considered both unbiblical and unorthodox.
Questions
Does this mean there are three Gods?
No. That’s a heresy known as “tri-theism.” The Bible clearly teaches, and so Christians have always affirmed, that there is only one God. How three persons can be the same being isn’t something we’re able to understand at this point. To understand, God would have to help us in ways He hasn’t yet.
Does this mean that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person?
No. That’s a heresy known as “modalism.” It claims that the one God only appears as different persons at different times… sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit. This directly contradicts a number of plain passages of Scripture where, for example, Jesus indicates that He is certainly not the Father.
Was this made up at the Council of Nicaea?
No. The Council of Nicaea was in 325 AD. A hundred years before that, Tertullian wrote about the Trinity. Plus, Christians believed in the trinity long before that. The fact that the New Testament was finished by the end of the first century attests to this fact. Clement of Rome, who died in 99 AD, wrote this: “Do we not have one God, and one Christ, and one gracious Spirit that has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?” – 1 Clement 46:6.
Join me on Substack!
How can you post this with no scripture to back it?
— this [posting an explanation to the most contested ‘Christian’ topic] with no scripture to back it up, goes against your own beliefs, as in you — as a person people respect and look to –regardless of what the Church says.
You literally don’t even believe it’s ok for you to do this, other than you’re more scared of people than god.
I feel the need to remind you of this incase you’re getting in your own way.
The words of another respected man that people looked to:
“We should keep away from these men for now. We should leave them alone. I can guarantee that if the plan they put into action is of human origin, it will fail. However, if it’s from God, you won’t be able to stop them. You may even discover that you’re fighting against God.” -Gamaliel, Acts 5:38-39
One of his other quotes is applicable here. In Pirkei Avot, Gamaliel is credited as saying:
“Make a teacher for yourself and remove yourself from doubt; and do not give excess tithes by estimating.”
I’d urge you to make a teacher for yourself. Look at where tithing came from and I trust you’ll be able to see the bigger picture and implications and overlap. Worship what you know.
If your soul depended on it you would not sign a trinity document. You can’t even explain it with scripture.
Blake:
Is this how you handle all of your disagreements… berating the person you think is wrong, hoping they’ll feel some level of shame to match your own level of arrogance?
Quote: This post is not an attempt at laying out a full explanation for the doctrine, which will come later. It’s simply an effort to get the doctrine ‘on the record’.
Your apology has already been accepted, Blake… now feel free to try again. Speak clearly, be direct, and explain what you believe without resorting to insults. I’ll be here when you get back.
I don’t apologize, for i’m not sorry.
You said:
“False teachers distort what Jesus taught. It’s important to remember Jesus’ words from John 8:31-32: If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. If you don’t know the truth, you can’t be free, so – logically – people who believe a lie are being kept in bondage.
Good theology makes trusting God easier, and bad theology makes trusting God harder. That’s the reason GodWords exists: to help people trust God by learning what Jesus actually taught. False teachers make trusting God harder, so they should be exposed.”
Yet you posted an explanation on your website, to the most divisive part of belief, with no explanation from Jesus as to why this is your one post with zero scripture.
As to my beliefs, my beliefs don’t matter to other people looking for answers.
I’m not even sure what you’re asking to be honest. I believe in god. God chose the Jews and had covenants with them. Then the covenant got opened to everyone through Jesus as a sacrifice. The rest is politics at best and not over or anywhere clear.
What’s your point, Blake? I explained IN THE ARTICLE that it would be a brief explanation, and it is. I can’t write everything, all at once, to prevent you from complaining. If you have an issue with what I’ve actually written, feel free to ask for clarification. If you have an issue with the fact that I haven’t written a longer article about the Trinity yet, feel free to patiently wait while I work through my to-do list and finally get to write the article that will apparently make you happy.
Until then, you might be pleased to note that you and I seem to agree on covenants… even though you didn’t provide a single passage of Scripture to back you up. ?
What would change in your faith if there was no trinity? That’s my point.
Anne dedicated Mary to god. Even though it’s not in the bible it’s in church doctrine and they claim they’re infallible so I guess it counts unless you acknowledge Peter really founded Antioch, not Rome, but then the argument is easier. Also it’s very telling the schism was after a millennium — and directly affects Paul fyi (Holy Spirit cannot come from the Son).
All I can say about Paul is “I don’t know Paul.”
Jesus may definitely know Paul, and God may definitely know Paul, but I do not know him — and God said through Jesus that I would be able to recognize his voice. That’s all I can say, I’m not hiding anything, it’s simply not my place to say more. I trust god and I trust the plan. God can use whoever he wants to fulfill his promises, and one thing I will say is — Pauls form of ‘Christianity’ is the only one that survived. So that’s what it took to get to you and I.
God took Mary at the age of 3 and had Zachariah raise her in the temple. In exchange for Zachariah’s services God gave him John the Baptist. God gave the girl given to him (Mary) a miraculous birth (Jesus). So Jesus is cleaved of all free will at that point, no free will human has a claim to him.
God stuffs gods word into Jesus. “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god.”
Jesus is gods word. “The Son” is a Jeudean term that even they admit only kinda sorta meant God — it really meant from god even then.
The Holy Spirit everyone believes in they just don’t call it that and don’t believe in naming it. If you name it they’ll say NO, but if you ask if god can do (the actions the holy spirit does) they’ll say yes.
So my point is why promote division if it changes nothing in your belief? Jesus said “If you are not on my side, you are against me. If you don’t gather in the harvest with me, you scatter it.”
This feels more like scattering than harvesting.
Blake:
I appreciate you coming with more details. With respect, your words are inconsistent. You ask what would change if there was no trinity, suggesting that my faith doesn’t require this information. The inconsistency comes from the reverse: what would change for YOUR faith if there IS a trinity? If it’s unimportant for me, it should be unimportant for you. Instead, you’ve spent quite a bit of time writing to me about this supposed error in my beliefs. This suggests that you think it IS important… so important that you must write to me again and again to make your point.
These days, it’s kind of popular to suggest that biblical Christianity and Pauline Christianity are two different things. This is both unbiblical and illogical. Peter called Paul’s writings “Scripture”, and that means that you and I should also call Paul’s writings SCRIPTURE. If you think Peter was wrong, say so… that way I’ll know you feel comfortable invalidating any part of the Bible that makes you uncomfortable, including both Paul’s writings and Peter’s writings.
Again, you’re inconsistent. You say that Anne’s dedication of Mary isn’t in the Bible, but it’s in church doctrine… as if that should settle the matter. What else is in church doctrine? THE TRINITY, of course. Picking and choosing your beliefs is the same as worshipping yourself, Blake. You can worship the God who actually exists, or you can worship the god you prefer. They’re not the same.
It’s funny how you’ll accept a later tradition from the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James but reject half of the books in the New Testament, which are attested early and often by first- and second-century writers. This suggests that you’re unwilling to accept ALL of the teachings of the Catholic church (as am I) but are willing to pick and choose the things you prefer to believe.
If your point is “why promote division,” then you should have avoided writing to me in the first place… because you’re definitely being divisive. If the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t important, then it shouldn’t matter to you whether anyone believes it. If your next comment sticks with your current agenda, we’re done here. Otherwise, I’d be happy to engage on Scriptural topics using Scripture, reason, and logic.
I wish you well.