Trinity and Sexual Love

[duanruining]

thanks warrior. I find this particular topic quite exciting. Especially for Christians in the modern world where "sexual love" is generally misunderstood, abused and exploited. It seems to me that if we can discover (rediscover) God's original and ultimate meaning of sexuality it can be very redeeming.

Also, I think it helps to clarify the beauty and pure excitement of Christian sexuality. In our world where a "trashy" version of sexual love is so often shoved down our throats by the mass media (and even by our new 'academics'), it can seem like the Christian understanding of sex is somehow less exciting or tempting. In reality however, the Christian understanding of sex is intimately linked with God's plan for humanity, and His plan of salvation. I would argue that the Christian approach is the only approach which can satisfy our 'desires' because the Christian approach is so much more than 'skin deep'.

Mittu: You do not find evidence for the Trinity as 'distinct persons' and 'one God'? My position is merely the classic Christian formulation. I just took a look at wikipedia to see if there is a general agreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

It seems that my point is pretty well established, probably on-par with the canonicity of the Bible itself. But, if you have specific objections I would be interested to hear it.

Perhaps, your objection is against all of theology: how can we understand God given the limits of the human mind? Granted we cannot fully understand God, but that doesn't mean God cannot take steps to reveal Himself to us.

[Mittu]

Actually, the only reference that directly semi-implies the Trinity is this:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one"

(from your link) and this doesn't really make a lot of sense, and could very easily be mis-interpreted.

All I'm saying is there's not enough sufficient biblical evidence to support this Trinity idea for it to be a corner stone for a lot of Christian organizations (ie. IVCF)

I'm not denouncing anything that's in the Bible, but I'm not going to make Quantum leaps either without it actually making some sense. I mean, the way the Trinity is described by a lot of Christians is as biblically supported as saying Jesus was a 5'10 brown haired white dude.


EDIT: From the same website:
....claims in opposition to trinitarianism.
* That it is an invention of early Christian church fathers, such as Tertullian.
* That the scriptural support for the doctrine is implicit at best. For example, the New Testament refers to the Father and the Son together much more often than to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the word "trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible.
* That scripture contradicts the doctrine, such as when Jesus states that the Father is greater than he is, or the Pauline theology: "Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."
* That it reflects the influence of pagan religions, some of which have divine triads of their own.
* That it does not follow the strict monotheism found in Judaism and the Old Testament, of which Jesus claimed to have fulfilled.
* That the doctrine relies almost entirely on non-Biblical terminology. Some notable examples include: Trinity, Three-in-one, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, Person in relation to anyone other than Jesus Christ being the image of God's person (hypostasis).

I bolded my favorite arguments

[The Warrior]

I seem to recall something from somewhere in the old testament about "Let us make man in our image." There's another that I can't confirm because I don't speak Hebrew, but in the ten comandments when God says something along the lines of "the LORD your God is one" there's a word which is translated to English as 'one' which means a unity made of one or more parts. I'm not positive, but I think my source got that from a Christian Rabbi.

[Mittu]

Assuming your right, that's still not enough of a basis to build a foundation of faith on. Plus is doesn't discredit any of the criticisms of trinity theology.

[The Warrior]

At Jesus' baptism, a voice from heaven said "you are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." and the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. Also, Jesus prayed often. Was he praying to himself? He also told his disciples that he would sent the Holy Spirit. Was he saying that he would leave, but not to worry, he would send himself back? It also says that Jesus intercedes for us before the justice seat of God and that the Holy Spirit prays for us when we don't know what to pray.

So there are many examples when multiple members of the trinity are present at the same time, and interacting with each other. So are there multiple persons involved somehow (and no, I don't understand how that works) or is God Schitzophrenic?

Maybe you should be less hell-bent on questioning everything and actually look for answers once in a while.

[duanruining]

This is absolutely fascinating. I think both of you, Mittu and Warrior, have great points.

At the outset, of course, I would point out that this is part of the problem of Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It gets the cart in front of the horse, so to speak. The doctrine of the Trinity is just as firmly entrenched in the Tradition of Christianity as the canon of Scripture. But...that is another issue.

Mittu your points are, I think, really good points. Also, the points that you copied from Wikipedia (my "neutral" source too) show that there are many possible arguments against the Trinity both from particular interpretations of the scriptures, or from history. I just had Jehovah's witnesses at the door last week. I realise that they base their entire faith on a re-interpretation of Jesus as "a god" that was "created" by Jehovah. It is really the same Arianism that the Church denounced early on. But, somehow JWs don't mind. I have yet to grasp the full reasons for their position.

But, on the other hand, I think Warrior's points are devastating. We have numerous places in which the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son are described to us quite provokatively and distinctly. The question is how do we respond to it? How do we understand it? We cannot ignore it simply because it is not spelled-out in instruction manual format.

I think part of Mittu's approach to the Bible is not only influenced by Luther, but also by contemporary philosophy such as Descartes rational skepticism, and Occam's "razor". It is kind of a strongly secular-humanistic way of approaching the Bible. Also legal positivism in the sense that the letters ARE the law. I do not know what commits you to this tradition of philosophy, as opposed to another. I think the Christian tradition is full of other ways of interpreting scripture which are not afraid of seeking synthesis, seeking the spirit and meaning of the text, and thereby growing a bit beyond the four corners of the text: especially when the conclusions are logical and widely accepted by believers.

I mean, I think that is possible even if you do not accept the authority of the Church on these matters.

[Mittu]

duan:
Perfect summary of our discussion. Your question "How do we respond? How do we understand it?" is absolutely critical. And you're right I do take a legalistic approach to Christianity and the Bible. This is because I place 0 faith in the truth of man, therefore I see all tradition as being flawed. If I can't see the rationale behind why things are or if I disagree with the rationale for why things are I will immediately discard it as wrong (actually this is generally true for most things I do).

In the case of the Trinity and the traditional/common theology surrounding it, I don't see/agree with the rationale. I'd rather just develop my own understanding and argue with everyone else

But you're asbolutely right, how do we respond? What are your thoughts?

[duanruining]

Well your approach is very protestant. I was a protestant not too long ago and my approach was remarkably similar to yours. I refused to "join" any denomination because I thought it was ridiculous to think that I could agree with 100% of any denominations teachings. I believed that because all men are sinful, they are necessarily flawed in their thinking so I would never trust them. (I never realized that I should apply the same standard to myself...and not trust myself and my own logic!) Basically, I preferred myself and my own interpretation of scripture because if I made a mistake, at least I could take the blame and not be some kind of pathetic follower who accepted someone else's error blindly.

It never really occurred to me that the Bible was written by "men" who actually held a physical writing instrument (maybe a pen) in their hands and wrote down letters that became the Bible. If I was true to my own logic then I would have to deny the Bible too, because the writers were merely men! Flawed, sinful men! Paul admits his sinfulness "I do what I do not want to do". When we read "all are sinners" it does not exclude the writers of the Bible.

If God could "manipulate" these fragile writers so that they could scribble down an "inspired" and "inerrant" Bible...then what is stopping God from guiding men now? Has God lost his power?

And what is this about in Matt 16?: Jesus replied, "Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my father in heaven. And I tell you that you are 'Rock' and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

So, I have concluded that it is illogical for me to assume that I am so much more intelligent than the Apostles, particularly the fellow named "Rock" (Peter) since Jesus promised him a fairly important set of keys...and a pretty sturdy sounding church.

You are welcome too!