Am I right about the trinity?

[jfrog]

First of all I would love to get some thoughts from actual trinity believers on this.

I firmly believe the problem that oneness believers have with the trinity is more a problem of presentation than substance. Now before I get 100+ objections hear me out on this.

A trinity believer typically presents three main points in any explanation on the trinity:

1. God is one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
2. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
3. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

This presentation is confusing because "The trinity believer seems to use two different definitions for God"

1. God is defined as a being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit
2. The Father is defined as God in a different way (typically God here simply refers to divine)

These apparent conflicting definitions lead to two incorrect inferences about what the trinity teaches.

1. The trinity teaches 3 Gods because they say the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God and at the same time say the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
2. The trinity teaches that God is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Father is not the Father Son and Holy Spirit then this implies the Trinity believer doesn't actually believe the Father is God.

I propose all the objections and misunderstandings and mystery around the trinity can be resolved if the trinity believer simply starts acknowledging that the trinity is going to use a single definition for God. That definition should be the one he started with, God is one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So when he says the Father is God he simply needs to acknowledge that the Father is the one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When he says the Son is God he simply needs to acknowledge that the Son is the one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and so on....

OBJECTION!!!!! Aren't those statements some kind of contradiction that needs avoided and thus why the trinity believer started explaining the trinity with two definitions of God in the first place?

MY ANSWER! Saying "the Father is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit" isn't actually a contradiction. However, if we were to say the Father is the Father Son and Holy Spirit that would be a contradiction due to the fact that it's already been said that the Father is not the Son. I hope that distinction is clear. If not maybe I can try to elaborate on it later.

So once its admitted that the Father is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit it becomes clear how the trinity teaches there is one God and how the Father is God and how the Son is God and how the Holy Spirit is God and how the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit. In other words once this is admitted the trinity doesn't sound nearly as mysterious or hard to understand.

This is why I say it's a problem with presentation, because most trinity believers would have denied that the Father is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit out of the seeming contradiction it makes. However, if they had examined closer they would have realized that statement creates no contradiction and actually resolves most of the objections people have to the trinity.

Any opinions from trinity believers? Is this what the trinity doctrine is trying to teach?
Any opinions from oneness believers? Would you object to the trinity if the trinity was presented this way?

Am I right about any of this or am I way off in left field somewhere?

[shazeep]

ok, my reply to the last question is "yes."

[obriencp]

I was raised oneness and still lean that way. However, when I openly and honestly talk to trinitarians, we agree on most everything. That leads me to believe all the judgementalism and fear I had toward them was based on what my oneness teachers/pastors wanted me to believe about them. Strawman anyone?

I still don't like the term "Person" and while I speak of the Holy Spirit(Holy Ghost), i think of it as the spirit of God or Jesus inside of us. When i hear some speak of the Holy Spirit, it seems as they think of it as a him or separate person from the Father and Jesus. Don't know if I'll ever really understand it.

Some of these threads really expose the fact that in oneness and in trinitarianism there are a lot of differing views.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by obriencp

I was raised oneness and still lean that way. However, when I openly and honestly talk to trinitarians, we agree on most everything. That leads me to believe all the judgementalism and fear I had toward them was based on what my oneness teachers/pastors wanted me to believe about them. Strawman anyone?

I still don't like the term "Person" and while I speak of the Holy Spirit(Holy Ghost), i think of it as the spirit of God or Jesus inside of us. When i hear some speak of the Holy Spirit, it seems as they think of it as a him or separate person from the Father and Jesus. Don't know if I'll ever really understand it.

Some of these threads really expose the fact that in oneness and in trinitarianism there are a lot of differing views.

Perhaps this is why:

Jn 14
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by obriencp

I was raised oneness and still lean that way. However, when I openly and honestly talk to trinitarians, we agree on most everything. That leads me to believe all the judgementalism and fear I had toward them was based on what my oneness teachers/pastors wanted me to believe about them. Strawman anyone?

I still don't like the term "Person" and while I speak of the Holy Spirit(Holy Ghost), i think of it as the spirit of God or Jesus inside of us. When i hear some speak of the Holy Spirit, it seems as they think of it as a him or separate person from the Father and Jesus. Don't know if I'll ever really understand it.

Some of these threads really expose the fact that in oneness and in trinitarianism there are a lot of differing views.

Thanks for the insight. I feel that way to.

I avoided using the word person in my description of the trinity because ultimately the word person in relation to the trinity was supposed to be descriptive and enlightening but it's really a very confusing description since the word person means so many different things these days.

I think trinitarians have caused many of their own problems on that front by constantly calling the trinity a mystery instead of finding ways to explain it. I think they have caused their own problems by using two different definitions of God when they discuss the trinity. I think they have caused their own problems by using the word person and not trying to define what they mean by it. I don't even think they realize they are doing these things either.

I think if trinitarians ever got away from using two different definitions of God and calling the trinity a mystery any time a hard question is asked and most especially if they set down and explained what they meant by person before using the word to refer to the members of the trinity..... if all these things were done by their side I think the trinity and oneness would start sounding strangely similar.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by obriencp

I was raised oneness and still lean that way. However, when I openly and honestly talk to trinitarians, we agree on most everything. That leads me to believe all the judgementalism and fear I had toward them was based on what my oneness teachers/pastors wanted me to believe about them. Strawman anyone?

I still don't like the term "Person" and while I speak of the Holy Spirit(Holy Ghost), i think of it as the spirit of God or Jesus inside of us. When i hear some speak of the Holy Spirit, it seems as they think of it as a him or separate person from the Father and Jesus. Don't know if I'll ever really understand it.

Some of these threads really expose the fact that in oneness and in trinitarianism there are a lot of differing views.

I hear those who profess "one-ness", and they sound very similar to believers of a trinity. Sometimes I cannot differentiate between them. The most obvious difference, to me, is that the Catholics baptize on the concept of three names; hence, three persons. One-ness baptize in the NAME of the son, but seem to believe that the flesh of the son is God. So the only thing that distinguishes them from the trinity is baptism.

[shazeep]

yup--which seem to me to be tempests in teacups; manufactured to divide. While we may only directly interact with Three, God has seven Spirits, we are told. While i get why many, Prax, would say that we can know God, i still think there is a sense in which we cannot, or do not.

[mfblume]

It's more than presentation. Trinitarians believe the Son existed for eternity and forever loved the Father and the Holy Ghost, and the experience was mutual. This eternal mutual interaction is just simply too polytheistic.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's more than presentation. Trinitarians believe the Son existed for eternity and forever loved the Father and the Holy Ghost, and the experience was mutual. This eternal mutual interaction is just simply too polytheistic.

This goes with the fairy tale that says "God had this fellowship within himself so he wouldn't be lonely".


BUNK!! God was and is completely sufficient within himself. He lacked for nothing. Creation was an result not of his lack, but from his ABUNDANCE!

Even when I was a Trinitarian I scoffed at these silly notions.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

This goes with the fairy tale that says "God had this fellowship within himself so he wouldn't be lonely".


BUNK!! God was and is completely sufficient within himself. He lacked for nothing. Creation was an result not of his lack, but from his ABUNDANCE!

Even when I was a Trinitarian I scoffed at these silly notions.