What is the meaning of "Trinity" ?

[8thdaypriest]

I feel a need to clarify some definitions. 

I would like to nail down a definition for the word - "Trinity".   Is there a definition?  Maybe Catholics, and Baptists, and Adventists, each have a different definition for that word.

Maybe Gregory can help here.   I realize the "tri" part means three.  Does "nity" mean unified - like tri/unity?  

Is that different from a "triune" God?  

Catholics believe that "God" is one substance - undivided, one Being, who exists as "three persons" ?  Is that correct Gregory?

Adventists believe that "God" is three separate individual divine persons/beings, who are united in purpose.  

I do see some light between the SDA understanding of "God" and the Catholic understanding of "God".   But I do not agree with either view.  

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel, your question is fundamental.  The reality is that many people differ in what they are talking about.  I have clearly seen that to be true of people posting in this forum on this subject.

I am going to give it some thought before I respond.

 

There is also a side question as to what people mean when they say that there are three (3_) persons in the God head.  Not everyone agrees on what is being said by this.  I think that this is related to the question that you asked.  Therefore I suggest that as people address your question, they also consider what is meant by this 2nd part of it.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel is correct in suggesting that there may be more than one understanding of the term Trinity.

The following sources may be helpful due in part to the fact that they both give some background to how that term has been understood at different times and by different groups (Both SDA and non-SDA):

Fernando Canale, "Doctrine of God,"   Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology:  Volume 12 of the Commentary Reference Series. Review & Herald Publishing, 2000, pages 105 - 159, 

Norman Gulley,  Systematic Theology: God As Trinity.  Volume II, Andrews University Press, 2011,  676 pages. 

The complexity of this subject may be illustrated by the fact that a 676 page book does not exhaust the subject and put it in in terms that will unite Christians as to a common understanding.

This is a subject that is gaining considerable interest in Adventism.  There are more recent books that have been published than the two that I list above to include some in 2018.

I will add to the reference list as I become aware of them.

The following book is an excellent one.  Its twelve (12) different authors wrote on a variety aspects of the Trinity.

Paul Petersen & Rob McIver, Editors.  Biblical & Theological Studies on the Trinity. Avondale Academic Press, 2014,  251 pages.  [NOTE:   This book even has a listing of Islamic passages as found in the Quran.]

NOTE:  Notable SDA works are being published by Avondale Press.  In my opinion this press is taking over the position once held here in the U.S.

 

[JoeMo]

I agree with both of you.  "What is the Trinity" is a complex and disruptive subject. If I may quote Holman's:

"The Trinity is a theological term used to define God as an undivided union expressed in the threefold nature of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. ..the Trinity is considered as a mystery beyond human comprehension to be reflected upon only through scriptural revelation.  The Trinity is a biblical concept that expresses the dynamic Character of God; not a Greek idea pressed into scripture from philosophical or religious speculation.  The trinitarian structure can be inferred throughout the NT to affirm that God Himself is manifested through Jesus Christ by means of the Spirit.  A proper biblical view balances the concepts of unity and distinctiveness. ...

Two errors that appear in the history of the consideration of the doctrine are tritheism and unitarianism.  In tritheism the error is made in emphasizing the distinctiveness of the Godhead to the point that the Trinity is seen as three separate Persons (Gods) or Christian polytheism. Unitarianism excludes the concept of distinctiveness while focusing solely on the aspect of God the Father.  In this way, Christ and the Holy Spirit are placed in lower categories and made less than divine."

The article goes on for pages; but you get the drift.  I think we have seen several views of the Trinity all along the spectrum from tritheism to unitarianism in our Trinity discussions here.  The part I like about the above definition is "the Trinity is considered as a mystery beyond human comprehension"  To me, that's the bottom line.  Some of us have to put a human construct on our ideas about God (e.g., a trinity); but the fact is that we have no clue about the nature of God outside of the clues (subject to subjective interpretation) given in scripture; and then only in the NT.

[APL]

“That three are one, and one is three,
Is an idea that puzzles me;
By many a learned sage ‘tis said
That three are one in the Godhead.
The Father then may be the Son,
For both together make but one;
The Son may likewise be the Father,
Without the smallest change of either.
Yea, and the blessed Spirit be The father, Son and trinity;
This is the creed of Christian folks,
Who style themselves true orthodox,
All which against plain common sense,
We must believe or give offense.”
~~ The Review & Herald, March 12, 1857.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

  JoMo:  Good post.

I am struggling to come up with a written definition that can be understood by someone like me!     In other words, my struggle includes coming up with a written definition that I understand.  

Frankly my best understanding of the Trinity comes from an illustration that I would use with a child.  "I have a three-stranded rope.  Each strand is the same and not independent of the other two strands.  But, the three combine to make one rope.  It is only one rope that I have.  I do not have three ropes."

I understand why some reject the Trinity on the basis that they consider it to be a polytheistic set of three separate gods.   That probably springs from our human concept of what a "person" is.  For that reason, I do not like the word "person" used in doctrinal statements on the Trinity.  Rather, I prefer the term "personal being."  

In considering the historic Church Councils, it is of value to understand what the issue was that the council considered.  Three of the  important issues were:

*  Is God the Father of the same substance (nature) as the so-called 2nd person of the Godhead?

*  To what extent was there a time when God the Father existed but the 2nd person of the Godhead did not exist?

*  To what extent was the 2nd person of the Godhead subordinate to God the Father.

Classic Trinitarians, as I understand them, acknowledging that there have been those who do not so believe, answered the above issues in the following:

*  God the Father and the 2nd person of the Godhead were of the same substance, (nature), prior to the incarnation of Christ.

*  The 2nd person of the "Godhead, has eternally existed in the same sense that God the Father has eternally existed.  From this standpoint, any Scriptural reference to a begetting is a reference to the incarnation.

*  The 2nd person of the Godhead, prior to the incarnation, was not subordinate to God the Father.

As I have stated, I like to talk about a "personal being" as I want to get away from my human concept of a person with the connected implication of a polytheistic set of three gods.  But, I really do not understand what this "personal being" is.  I am unable to define it.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As one part of this issue some will likely make statements as to the nature of the beliefs of early founders of the SDA Church.  The three books that I previously listed is of some help in considering that issue.  

In addition, those early SDA leaders were generally not trained scholars.  As such, they generally did not understand the nature of the Trinity and the Trinity that they rejected was not an orthodox understanding of the Trinity

Joseph Bates is believed to have understood the Trinity from a monarchianist concept that it taught that the Father and Son were .one and the  same person.  In reality, Trinitarians teach that the Father, Son and HS are one, they are also separate.  Bates was wrong in his understanding of what TRinitarians beleivd.

Joseph Frisbie, reflected a construct of the Trinity based in Docetism, in which he believed that Trinitarians taught the God was only a spirit.   It should be noted that some will disagree as to what Frisbie actually believed.

John Loughborough rejected the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis that he believed that Trinitarian doctrine taught a polytheistic set of three gods.

J. M. Stephenson believed that the 2nd person of the Godhead could not have eternally existed with God the Father.

NOTE:  I have based the above on the work of Kai Arasola as  published in the book I cited as published by the Avondale Press.

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I agree with both of you.  "What is the Trinity" is a complex and disruptive subject. If I may quote Holman's:

"The Trinity is a theological term used to define God as an undivided union expressed in the threefold nature of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. ..the Trinity is considered as a mystery beyond human comprehension to be reflected upon only through scriptural revelation.  The Trinity is a biblical concept that expresses the dynamic Character of God; not a Greek idea pressed into scripture from philosophical or religious speculation.  The trinitarian structure can be inferred throughout the NT to affirm that God Himself is manifested through Jesus Christ by means of the Spirit.  A proper biblical view balances the concepts of unity and distinctiveness. ...

Two errors that appear in the history of the consideration of the doctrine are tritheism and unitarianism.  In tritheism the error is made in emphasizing the distinctiveness of the Godhead to the point that the Trinity is seen as three separate Persons (Gods) or Christian polytheism. Unitarianism excludes the concept of distinctiveness while focusing solely on the aspect of God the Father.  In this way, Christ and the Holy Spirit are placed in lower categories and made less than divine."

The article goes on for pages; but you get the drift.  I think we have seen several views of the Trinity all along the spectrum from tritheism to unitarianism in our Trinity discussions here.  The part I like about the above definition is "the Trinity is considered as a mystery beyond human comprehension"  To me, that's the bottom line.  Some of us have to put a human construct on our ideas about God (e.g., a trinity); but the fact is that we have no clue about the nature of God outside of the clues (subject to subjective interpretation) given in scripture; and then only in the NT.

Yes.  We would "have no clue" EXCEPT that God wanted us to understand some things, and so He left some "clues".  

No - we will never "understand God."  He is too high above our puny minds.   But I do so look forward to understanding more one day.  

[8thdaypriest]

My "problem" with the doctrine of the Trinity, is that there IS NO clear definition of the term.   How can one espouse a doctrine, which is not clearly defined? 

SDA pioneers and Catholic theologians each individually understood the term differently.  It's like wrestling with smoke.  You can't get a good grasp of anything.   The immediate excuse is that it's just too far beyond our ability to understand.    

How can we believe in something that is beyond our ability to understand - even at the most basic level?  No wonder the agnostics think they have a good excuse.   

Why even spend time discussing whether "God" is a Trinity - if you cannot define "Trinity" ?  

You would think, if "God" really IS "a Trinity", that He would have left some strong statements to that effect.  

 

[Gregory Matthews]

There are many things in Scripture that are hard to understand, and/or have not been clearly stated in fullness.:

* Perhaps God wants us to spend some time and effort in study of some issues?

* Perhaps, some issues are not as important as  we make them to be.

*  Perhaps it is O.K. for Christians to differ on some points.

*  Perhaps  [You fill in the space.}

 

:)

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Some who reject the doctrine of the Trinity might make a statement similar to the following:  There is no Statement in the Bible that God is one divine being who manifists himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

I do not claim to be a theologian.  But, the statement above seems to me to be the heritical doctrine rejected by Christians, who called that doctrine Modalism.  Modalism taught that the one being, God, appeared in three different for the Fatehr, the Son & the Holy Spirit.

Orthodox Trinitarians reject that idea about God.

[8thdaypriest]

34 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

There are many things in Scripture that are hard to understand, and/or have not been clearly stated in fullness.:

* Perhaps God wants us to spend some time and effort in study of some issues?

* Perhaps, some issues are not as important as  we make them to be.

*  Perhaps it is O.K. for Christians to differ on some points.

*  Perhaps  [You fill in the space.}

 

 

Yup.  Not a "salvation issue".  

[8thdaypriest]

Jeremiah 29:13 "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart." 

Who was speaking here?   It does not say, "you will seek US and find US, which you search for US".  

[Gregory Matthews]

But the Trinitarian concept has one God, which is indicated by "me."

 

[APL]

14 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

But the Trinitarian concept has one God, which is indicated by "me."

 

Except: 

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

[JoeMo]

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Why even spend time discussing whether "God" is a Trinity - if you cannot define "Trinity" ? 

I think it is worthwhile discussing the character of God and how He manifests Himself.  Considering the Trinity is just one aspect of God.  Another aspect would be who in the Godhead actually created the universe - Father God?  The being who became Jesus Christ?  The Holy Spirit?  2 out of the 3?  or all 3?  Or does it matter?  Is this another of those non-salvational issues as long as we believe God created the heavens and the earth?

Another aspect might be "when did God create the universe".  There are many who believe it was about 6,000 years ago.  There are others who believe it was 13 billion years ago.  Is this another non-salvational issue as long as we believe that God created the universe as opposed to the "big bang"?

[Gregory Matthews]

Perhaps God created the Universe in the Big Bang.

Other than to say that God created it, the Bible does not say anything more about the creation of the Universe.

The Genesis record, is focused on the organization of the planet Earth to support life.

 

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The Genesis record, is focused on the organization of the planet Earth to support life.

 

IMHO, the Genesis record (as well as the entire Bible) covers the history of God's preparation of the earth for human domination and His interaction with humanity.  Genesis 1:1 could summarize billions of years.  The universe and life could have existed on earth for eons prior to the creation story of Genesis; but the Bible doesn't detail that history.

[8thdaypriest]

So far, what I'm hearing is that the word "Trinity" has no clear agreed upon definition.  Therefore "God" (if "He" IS a Trinity - is NOT clearly understood as such).  Folks who believe that God is a Trinity, do so because that is what they were taught, not because they clearly understand what that means. 

"God" - in the Greek, means "divine being" - divine as opposed to human.   "God" is not a name.  "God" is a type of being, with personal characteristics - characteristics we associate with personhood.  Sentient will (as opposed to instinct), communicative, responsive to the actions and emotions of His created beings (whether spirit beings or human beings).    Pronouns like he, him, his, and who  are used to refer to "God".  "God" has powers beyond those of human beings.  He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. 

Yahweh, the "God" of Israel, IS the original and always existent divine being - one being, who beget a second divine being from Himself, before THEY created anything.  The second being is also divine, and is therefore "God".   Is this not what John wrote?   
 

 

[JoeMo]

Was or is Jesus subservient to the Father; or are they co-equal?  If Jesus is subservient to the Father, is it based upon mutual respect and unity, or is it required?  If the HS is an actual being rather than the spirit (or breath) of the Father and the Son, is the Holy Spirit subservient to the Father and/or Son?  Or have both (or all three) mutually agreed to always agree?  Or if "God is One", is agreement among them equivalent to agreeing with one's self; so it's a moot point?

Is this a bizarre question?

[Gustave]

On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 12:09 PM, JoeMo said:

I agree with both of you.  "What is the Trinity" is a complex and disruptive subject. If I may quote Holman's:

"The Trinity is a theological term used to define God as an undivided union expressed in the threefold nature of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. ..the Trinity is considered as a mystery beyond human comprehension to be reflected upon only through scriptural revelation.  The Trinity is a biblical concept that expresses the dynamic Character of God; not a Greek idea pressed into scripture from philosophical or religious speculation.  The trinitarian structure can be inferred throughout the NT to affirm that God Himself is manifested through Jesus Christ by means of the Spirit.  A proper biblical view balances the concepts of unity and distinctiveness. ...

Two errors that appear in the history of the consideration of the doctrine are tritheism and unitarianism.  In tritheism the error is made in emphasizing the distinctiveness of the Godhead to the point that the Trinity is seen as three separate Persons (Gods) or Christian polytheism. Unitarianism excludes the concept of distinctiveness while focusing solely on the aspect of God the Father.  In this way, Christ and the Holy Spirit are placed in lower categories and made less than divine."

The article goes on for pages; but you get the drift.  I think we have seen several views of the Trinity all along the spectrum from tritheism to unitarianism in our Trinity discussions here.  The part I like about the above definition is "the Trinity is considered as a mystery beyond human comprehension"  To me, that's the bottom line.  Some of us have to put a human construct on our ideas about God (e.g., a trinity); but the fact is that we have no clue about the nature of God outside of the clues (subject to subjective interpretation) given in scripture; and then only in the NT.

"threefold nature of the God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"???

It's ONE Nature (Substance or Essence) that is co-equally owned by the Three Persons. 

 

[ReturntoDar]

On 7/17/2018 at 12:09 PM, JoeMo said:

I"the Trinity is considered as a mystery beyond human comprehension"  To me, that's the bottom line.

It is a "mystery" because the devil has shroded it in mystery, as he does with many things. It is NOT a mystery, Ellen White clears up and goes right to the heart of the matter: "God is the FATHER of Christ. Christ is the Son of God." The only "mystery" here is: why do most reject this straight forward Testimony of Jesus as given us through His prophet?

1. The "one true God", says the bible, is the Father of Christ. So does Ellen White. This is not complicated.

2. Christ is eternal, and yet, "begotten" and "broght forth". HERE is where anti-trinitarians stumble and fall. Christ IS eternal, yet He IS the one true God's Son. Now how can that be? THAT is the mystery. The key to solving it is: Do you believe the bible? Do you believe Ellen White? The mystery to me is, the vast majority of SDA claim to believe in both, while at the same time trying to reason out the unexplainable. Do you think humans are capable of understanding the details of God? Attempts to figure out the details will result in serious error. Every. Time!

Trinity issues distract from the REAL question, each of us WILL have to answer, if not now, certainly in the judgment. It is a salvation question. Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God, withou qualification, or not? SDA official position: Jesus is not the Son of God, He is just playing a "role". WHAT??? There is no higher form of blasphemy, and this, the official position of the Church!! Above all other things, THIS is the mystery. How in the world did the Church come to this startling position? This is the Omega which has followed the Alpha of false doctrines.

[phkrause]

On 11/25/2022 at 3:20 PM, ReturntoDar said:

SDA official position: Jesus is not the Son of God, He is just playing a "role".

Where did you read this?? I've never heard that!!

[ReturntoDar]

It is not surprising, I was surprised to find that MOST of the membership does not know what the official position on the Church is. And it IS this: Jesus is not really the Son of God! Wait. WHAT??? Yes, you read that right. It became our official position in 1980 when the Fundamental Beliefs were changed, you know how they read. But did you ever stop to think WHAT they mean? FB#2, the God Head, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. Simple right? Not so fast. What we have here is three Gods. The bible says there is ONE God. So how does that work? Actually, it doesn't work, but here we go. These three Gods, being one is "spirit" and "goals" and "insert pleasant sounding word here" comprise what you often hear in Church: "God". Who IS this God of which you speak? Enter Kellogg, this is god by committee. The three are one, well, in "spirit". This fourth god has no distinct or separate personality. It is a concept, an idea. This is NOT expressly stated in the bible or the Spirit of Prophecy but, it is said, we HAVE to accept this. Because, how else can you explain how Jesus is in fact eternal. He is divine, He can and does, without apology, use all of His Fathers names. Conclusion: He is not "really" God's Son, He is just playing an assigned "role". STOP, some will think I'm exagerating, I am not. This official position of the Church, voted in 1980 as a Fundamental Belief is very real. Those who voted it in, in 1980 understood the danger. They understood this COULD be used as a "test of faith". That has come to pass. Right now, around the world, people are actually being removed from membership because they refuse to accept this "concept" that Jesus is not "really" God's Son.

Let me be clear: Jesus IS Gods Son, How do I know? Because the bible tells me so. And Ellen White tells me so. "God is the FATHER of Christ. Christ is the SON of God", declares Ellen White. How does this differ from those who accept the Trinity? As near I can figure most, or even ALL of the Trinitarians believe Jesus "came into existence" at some point in time. Many of our pioneers believe that as well, ONE didn't, ELLEn WHITE! I believe her. Jesus IS eternal, He IS divine, He IS the Fathers Son!!! Well back to square one, how do you resolve this? Not for you to ask, the secret things belong to God. IF you starting messing around and trying to figure out God, you will end up with,,, well,,, Fundamental Belief #2.

I suppose this puts me at risk of being removed from the website, my post deleted, my membership called into question. I accept that. But know this: this issue is not about me, it's about the Son of God and His Father. You will have to answer to God (the reall God, not the "god by committee false god). I believe, this issue is the OMEGA that Ellen White said would come. It's here. Is this not "startling"? She said it would be. The Jews declared Jesus is NOT God's Son. We have done the same. Startling? I am blown away it has come to this. And it is NOT a Trinity issue, don't confuse it. The issue is straight forward: Is Jesus the SON of God, or not? Choose carefully, your salvation is at stake...

[ReturntoDar]

"...the Trinity is considered as a mystery beyond human comprehension..."

God is not mysterious, He is not beyond human conprehension. He is the Father of Christ. He is the ONE true God the bible speaks of in multiple verses. He is the One from whom all things came. There is no mystery here, the bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are very clear on who the One true God is.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort..." 2 Corinthians 1:3

"And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent". John 17:3

 "...and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17

The Father of Christ is not "pretending", He is not "role playing". He is a distinct personality, He sent us His Son, that we might live.