11,141
edits
The Historic Doctrine of the Trinity: Difference between revisions
The Historic Doctrine of the Trinity (view source)
Revision as of 18:20, 12 March 2022
, 2 years ago→Isn't it important just to believe in Jesus?
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
The Trinity is an explanation of the [[The Godhead]] that has historically been accepted by the vast majority of the world's Christian churches. The word "Trinity" was first used circa. A.D. 200 by Tertullian, a Latin theologian from Carthage. It is acknowledged that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, but then neither does the word "rapture" which is used regularly by message followers. | |||
The doctrine of the Trinity is shown in John 14:23, when Jesus says: | |||
:''... | :''If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and '''we''' will come unto him, and make '''our''' abode with him.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 14:23.</ref> | ||
<br> | |||
=The Historic Doctrine of the Trinity= | |||
So that we are all on the same page, a basic definition of the Trinity is necessary: | |||
:'''Within one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.'''<ref>James White, The Forgotten Trinity, Bethany House Publishing, 1998</ref> | |||
Commonly referred to as "One God in Three Persons", the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identified as distinct and co-eternal "persons" who share a single Divine essence, being, or nature. | |||
The doctrine of the Trinity was developed as a direct response to false doctrine that appeared in the church. Initially, the church was not in the need for a clear doctrine on the Godhead. But into the truth that Jesus and the Apostles left the church, error began to assert itself. This error finally manifested itself in false doctrine and the church responded with "right teaching" ( which is what the word "orthodoxy" means). | |||
==Polycarp== | |||
The martyrdom of Polycarp, perhaps the oldest martyrdom of which we have a written account (ca. early 160s A.D.), pictures the dying Polycarp addressing God in a clear Trinitarian confession: | |||
:''“O Lord God Almighty, Father of your beloved Son Jesus Christ … I bless you because you have considered me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a place among the number of the martyrs … to the resurrection to eternal life … in the incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit”<ref>The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:1–2</ref> | |||
==Justin Martyr== | |||
An early Ante-Nicene apologist for the Christian faith, Justin Martyr (110–165 A.D.) refers to Christ in a variety of ways, including “Lord,” “God the Son of God,” and “the Word.” As the “Word,” Jesus “carries tidings from the Father to men.” The power the Word exerts, however, is “indivisible and inseparable from the Father.” How so? Here Justin employs an illustration destined to appear again and again in the trinitarian thought of the fathers. Think, Justin asks his audience, of the sunlight that reaches the earth. While this light is distinct from the sun in the heavens, it is equally “indivisible and inseparable” from it. It is much the same with a fire igniting another fire. So it is with the begetting of the Son. The unbegotten Father begets the Son, “but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided.”<ref>Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 21–22.</ref> | |||
==Origen== | |||
In On First Principles (De Principiis), Origen (c. 245 A.D.), the great Alexandrian exegete, provides important and interesting examples of a theologian’s attempts to understand the biblical testimony and rule of faith concerning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and contributed to the development of trinitarian thinking. | |||
Origen understands that the Son was not created but was eternal: | |||
:''“For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there was a time when He did not exist.” | |||
In a preview of coming debates, Origen wonders how anyone could assert “that there once was a time when He was not the Son.” To assert that there was ever a time when the Son did not exist would be to contend “there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father, for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence… .”<ref>Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 24.</ref> | |||
==Irenaeus== | |||
Irenaeus states that: | |||
:''“The Jewish Creator God is identical with the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”<ref>Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 27.</ref> | |||
==Tertullian== | |||
Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 A.D.) wrote a book, ''Against Praxeas,'' in which we find Tertullian pondering central trinitarian issues and responding to heterodox Christian views regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In his responses and formulations, Tertullian was the first writer to use the word '''“person”''' to the members of the Trinity and the first to apply the Latin word '''“trinitas” (Trinity)''' to God, and the first to develop the formula of "one substance in three persons.” Tertullian constructed his model of God as one substance (substantia) and three distinct persons (persona) in response to the threat of both gnostic polytheism and Christian modalism.<ref>Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 29-30.</ref> | |||
==Athanasius vs. Arius== | |||
Arius argued that the Son was an exalted creature, elevated above all others, but still a creation of God. Arius writes, for instance, that “God was not always a Father,” “The Son was not always,” “the Word of God Himself was ‘made out of nothing,’ ” “once He was not,” “He was not before His origination,” and “He as others ‘had an origin of creation.’ ” “For God,” Arius taught, “was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named him Word and Wisdom and Son, that he might form us by means of Him.” | |||
Athanasius’ writings are inseparably linked to his lifelong battle with Arianism. His "Four Discourses Against the Arians" provide us with many examples of how Athanasius read the Bible and applied its contents to a specific theological problem of great moment. Arian Christians refused to equate the Son with the Father, basing this rejection on philosophical, theological, and exegetical reasons. | |||
As the Son, Christ existed as “the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom.” In the incarnation the Son willingly and lovingly took on the human flesh derived from “a Virgin, Mary, Bearer of God, and was made man.” The Word was “not external” to the humanity he had assumed. Rather, when the incarnate Son lived and ministered on earth, humanity and deity were both at work in an incomprehensible union. When Jesus healed the mother-in-law of Simon Peter, “He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely.” When he healed the man born blind from birth, “human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay.” At the raising of Lazarus, “he gave forth a human voice, as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead.”49 Athanasius sees the Son’s incarnate actions as manifesting the genuine union existing in his person between his humanity and his deity. If he grieved or expressed other human emotions, such was only proper. For “it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it,” though Athanasius is uncomfortable with the idea that Christ’s human “affections” touched his deity.<ref>Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 32-33.</ref> | |||
=The Limitations of the Doctrine= | |||
The doctrine of the Trinity is the summary expression of what Christians have to say in answer to the question who God is and what God is in the divine life and in relation to what is not God.<ref>Colin E. Gunton, The Doctrine of Creation : Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 155.</ref>However, William Branham felt that he could reject almost 2000 years of thought and study out of hand: | |||
:''So they say... He said, "Well, Mr. Branham, you know, even the--the theologians can't explain it." | |||
:''I said, "That's exactly right. The Word don't come to a theologian." Uh-huh. I said, "The Bible is all tied into the Revelation, 'Upon this rock I'll build My Church, and the gates of hell can't prevail against It.'" See? Amen, there you are. See? But then when it comes to those things... Oh, my!<ref>WHO.DO.YOU.SAY.THIS.IS_ PHOENIX.AZ V-6 N-9 SUNDAY_ 64-1227</ref> | |||
However, it is important to understand that theologians believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very difficult issue: | |||
:''We do not think it open to full explication in human thought. It is not wise to attempt more than is attainable. Yet the manifest prudence of this law has often been violated in strivings after an unattainable solution of this doctrine. We shall not repeat the error. Still, the divine Trinity is so manifestly a truth of Scripture, and so cardinal in Christian theology, that the question cannot be omitted. If a full solution cannot be attained, the facts may be so presented as not to appear in contradictory opposition. With this attainment, nothing hinders the credibility of the doctrine on the ground of Scripture.'' <ref>John Miley, Systematic Theology, Volume 1, 223 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1892)</ref> | |||
:''How is it that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Ghost is God, and yet that there are not three Gods, but one God? I cannot tell you. I know it is so, for so it is revealed; but how it is so it is not for us to guess, because it is not revealed or explained. Our understanding can adventure as far as the testimony, and no farther. Many attempts have been made by divines to find parallels in Nature to the Unity and the Trinity of God, but they all seem to me to fail. | |||
:''Perhaps the very best one is that of St. Patrick, who, when preaching to the Irish, and wishing to explain this matter, plucked a shamrock and showed them its three leaves all in one—three, yet one. Yet there are flaws and faults even in that illustration. It does not meet the case. It is a doctrine to be emphatically asserted as it is expounded in that Athanasian Creed; the soundness of whose teaching I do not question, for I believe it all, though I shrink with horror from the abominable anathema which assert that a man who hesitates to endorse it will “without doubt perish everlastingly.” It is a matter to be reverently accepted as it stands in the Word of God, and to be faithfully studied as it has been understood by the most scrupulous and intelligent Christians of succeeding generations. | |||
:''We are not to think of the Father as though anything could detract from the homage due to him as originally and essentially divine, nor of the only begotten Son of the Father as though he were not “God over all, blessed for ever,” nor of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, as though he had not all the attributes of Deity. We must abide by this, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Jehovah”; but we must still hold to it that in three Persons he is to be worshipped, though he be but one in his essence.<ref>C. H. Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, Vol. LXII, 315-16 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1916).</ref> | |||
=Must one believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?= | |||
Roger Olson, a well known Christian theologian and author (Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology of Ethics at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University) stated the following: | |||
:''...'''the doctrine of the Trinity is not part of the gospel; it is not revealed truth. It is constructed out of revealed truth and constitutes necessary reflection on revealed truth in the light of heresies''' (subordinationism, adoptionism, modalism, tritheism, etc.). Once the doctrine of the Trinity was constructed and embraced by the church ecumenical (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) '''it could not and should not be set aside, ignored or rejected.''' '''But neither should it be confused with revelation itself or the gospel of Jesus Christ.''' | |||
:''...If the doctrine of the Trinity is not part of the gospel, what doctrine is? '''Central to the gospel are the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (incarnation) and the atonement (the cross as saving sacrifice for sins). Also included are salvation by grace through faith and Jesus’ and our resurrections by the power of God. These are necessary beliefs, insofar as they are known and understood (however dimly), for being “Christian.” Part and parcel of the gospel is that God has come to us and for us as the Father of Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ is God and savior and that the Holy Spirit is the personal power and presence of God in resurrection l'''ife. | |||
:''...'''How one can grasp the gospel and not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity is difficult to understand, but it happens.''' Many Christians simply cannot “wrap their minds around” the doctrine of the Trinity and so put it on a shelf, so to speak, and leave it there — neither believing it nor denying it. A few deny it simply because they misunderstand it and it’s difficult to blame them. According to a famous statement often attributed to St. Augustine “If you deny the Trinity you lose your salvation but if you try to understand it you lose your mind.” That’s the difficulty many Christians find themselves in and they feel caught between having to believe a doctrinal formulation they can make no sense of and being threatened with losing their status as Christian (if not their salvation). | |||
:''...'''Please don’t get me wrong; I think belief in the Trinity, that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and yet one God, is essential to authentic Christianity.''' But someone who demurs from confessing the “one substance, three persons” for reasons other than denial of the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, are probably just confused, mystified, perplexed. I would not join a church that did not confess the doctrine of the Trinity in some form (at least implicitly if not explicitly), but I cannot deny the Christian status of someone who is genuinely confused and uncertain about it. | |||
:A. | :''A few years ago I visited a church that claims not to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. A soloist sang a song titled “O Lamb of God” the first line of which says “From your side you sent your Son.” I tried to ask my friend who is an elder of the church how they can sing that song and mean it and at the same time deny the doctrine of the Trinity. He looked at me bemused and said “We believe whatever the Bible says.” Then I was bemused. My life experiences and reading of Brunner have led me to think that the doctrine of the Trinity, although extremely important as a landmark, if not a pillar, of Christian doctrine, is not essential to being Christian. But I suspect that if I could get any real Christian who claims not to believe in the Trinity alone in a room, one-on-one, for an hour long conversation about the matter I could convert them to belief in it. | ||
:''In sum, then, I am suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity lies in a liminal position between or overlapping the borders of dogma and doctrine as I described these as two of three categories (the third being opinion) of Christian beliefs. '''“Dogma”''' is the category of essentials of the Christian faith, what is required to believe in order to be considered Christian. There I would place the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (incarnation). '''“Doctrine”''' (in the sense of this taxonomy) is the category of important but not essential beliefs. There I would place, for example, universal atonement. '''“Opinion”''' is the third category in which I would place premillennialism.<ref>Must You Believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity to Be a Christian?, Roger E. Olson, published on www.patheos.com, February 5, 2015</ref> | |||
=What does "person" mean= | =What does "person" mean= | ||
| Line 73: | Line 144: | ||
=C.S. Lewis' analogy= | =C.S. Lewis' analogy= | ||
< | <youtube width='400' height='300'>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQkFlzFJ3kA</youtube> | ||
C.S. Lewis provided one of the best analogies for understanding this problem that we have encountered: | C.S. Lewis provided one of the best analogies for understanding this problem that we have encountered: | ||
| Line 101: | Line 172: | ||
In contrast, the Bible unequivocally gives this information: | In contrast, the Bible unequivocally gives this information: | ||
Jesus is the Son of God, distinct from the Father; Jesus cannot be the Son of God if he is also God the | Jesus is the Son of God, distinct from the Father; Jesus cannot be the Son of God if he is also God the Father. Jesus spoke of his Father in many passages. Jesus prayed to the Father. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus talks about how God sent him (Jesus) to earth. The Holy Spirit is given the same attributes of deity as God[2] | ||
Illustration of The Trinity | Illustration of The Trinity | ||