Expert: Hoyt Roberson - 12/3/2008

Question
QUESTION: What is the relationship between, the father, the son and the holy spirit?   Are they all gods?   Are they equal?  If not what is order of authority?   Are they a trinity?  Who do you worship?


ANSWER: Chuck,

Thanks for asking your questions.

Well you ask some tough questions. Unfortunately, your questions are age-old and no one really knows the answers. In the history of Christendom, these questions have been argued many times with not a few folks being labeled heretics because of their views. In fact, one of the causes of the schism between the Roman Catholic church and the eastern, Orthodox churches was the wording in the current (Western) Nicene Creed that implies (at least to enough Orthodox folks to make it matter) that the Spirit emanates from both the Father and the Son, rather than just from the Father. Somewhat esoteric, but demonstrative of the fine details that folks have argued over for centuries.

Quite simply, your questions are unanswerable for the most part, with any certainty of correctness. The idea of the Trinity is developed from what Scripture says rather than a direct revelation of God in a succinct statement. For instance Jesus says “The Father and I are One,” and “the Father will send the Spirit.” In other places, Jesus is referred to as the Son of God which the Pharisees take as a claim to Divinity. In an attempt to balance all these indicators with God’s clear assertion that He is the only real God to be had; that there is only one God, some device has had to be developed for us humans to make sense of the one-but-many manifestations of this God.

With that background, let’s look at your questions:

1. What is the relationship between the father, the son, and the holy spirit? The Father is generally understood to be the causative force of the Godhead, the director of God’s will and activities. The other two seem to be methods of God’s interaction with the Creation. These two respond to the directive force of the Father to accomplish the Divine desire.

Many concepts have been suggested to illustrate the three-in-one idea. Some have offered the idea of an egg with its shell, yoke, and white – but still one egg. Others object to this concept because you can still separate the three and they don’t think we can separate the Father, Son, and Spirit. Others have suggested a Freudian-esque approach, using the concept of the Id, Ego, and Superego – but still one mind as an acceptable alternative. Others object to this concept because the three seem to be in conflict with one another and the three members of the Godhead are not in competition. There have been countless other concepts suggested, some better than others, but all objectionable to someone for some reason.

2. Are they all gods? The traditional view is that they are not plural gods, but essences, forms, or manifestations of one God. It is important to understand that this response is by necessity limited, and can only touch on ideas and concepts. It is also important that when I use terms such as essences, forms, and manifestations (or other similar words), I use words that are understood differently by various interpreters and in some camps close to being heretical (in other camps not heretical).

3. Are they equal? See 4, below.

4. If not, what is order of authority? In their essence, in their divinity, there is no difference. In their manifestations and roles there does seem to be a difference with the Father as the causative force and both the Son and the Spirit as the issuance of that force.

5. Are they a Trinity? The standard answer to this question is “yes.” What is not well understood (because it cannot be) is exactly how the Trinity exists in its various forms and manifestations.

6. Who do you worship? This is, to me, perhaps your most intriguing question. While most Christians will worship any of the three, it remains true that Jesus pointed people to the Father rather than himself, and the Spirit is said to be a help for believers who would remind and support the believers of what Jesus said (presumably also pointing to the Father as the object of worship). It would seem then, that the Father or God in-His-complete-form would rightly be the object of worship with the Son and the Spirit being agents (in some manner) that lead people to the God who is said to have made Man in “our” image. However, since we are also told that it was the Word (taken to be the Son – or Jesus) who created and who sustains the world, and since we are told that the Spirit emanates from God and is the spirit of God, all three are understood to be divine and worthy of worship.

So what to do? Simply accept that we do not – and likely cannot – understand the essence of God or the various interactions between manifestations of the Divine. The simple answer is not to sweat it. The real question for us is not whether we can define God in human concepts, but rather, when we see Jesus, does His example make sense to us as God behavior; does His life draw us to a realization that that is what I want to become?

As far as churches of Christ are concerned, we do not have an overly developed independent doctrine of the Trinity. We accept it as true without trying to figure it out. We have very few scholars who have attempted a systematic theology to explain God in the way you have asked.

Please let me know if any of this doesn't make sense.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I attended a Church of Christ Men's Bible study with the minister there as well some time back for a while.  They made a study of the trinity and concluded there was no such thing and that the Father and Son were completely seperate and they never decided about the Holy Spirit.   

I ask another Church of Christ minister and his answer was there is a trinity and that all three are equal but he could not explain how there were equal very well.

Now I have your answer and I do appreciate you taking time to reply.  You make some good points.  But it leaves me thinking now that the Churches of Christ are not very united in their teachings and belief.

It seem to me that we must know who exactly we are to worship.  Religions around the world have a name and a well defined god whom they worship, whether they are right or wrong.  

You would think that if God wants us to worship him properly, he would make clear exactly who he is.  It seems to me that too many creeds in the history of Christendom and other opinions have blotted out a clear understanding of the question.

Maybe this is the reason we see so many people worldwide today paying very little attention to the teaching of the Bible nor taking them to heart.

Thanks again for you reply.

Chuck

ANSWER: Well, Chuck, your observation is a pretty good one - Churches of Christ have beliefs that run the gamut of essentially conservative Christianity - within reason. Outside of our rules for doing church, and our insistence on baptism for immersion, almost every congregation is different. Even though, with our standard rules, almost every congregation is somewhat different. That isn't all that odd though. Most denominations (we prefer the word brotherhood - but it means the same thing for the most part) have their rules, and then the local congregation modifies them as they need within their situations. For instance, most Roman Catholic congregations are "standard" but some are actually more charismatic than most, and some observe lesser feast days and some don't clutter their calendars with anything other than the local and major days.

I agree that we should know who it is we worship but I'm not sure that knowing the essence of a being admitted to be transcendent is what we should be after - or if we can even grasp the transcendent with our physical orientation. Who we worship is defined by character more than (for lack of a better word) physical make up.

It seems that that is why Jesus came - to show us God and by extension, who we were actually made to be. We do seem to get caught up in the rules of church, or looking good to other church goers, or making sure we don't say anything that wouldn't be orthodox - and in so doing we lose sight of who we are supposed to be becoming. If we can see past the form, the rules, we can hear what Jesus was trying to say. If we can finally hear Him, we may well be able to move closer to our God and live lives that actually reflect Him.

Which is after all, why we were made; and that really is why Paul says our lives are our spiritual worship.

Thanks for the conversation Chuck; I hope you have a great evening.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I found this article on the internet today.   Your comments would be appreciated.

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?  



IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God's revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is.

First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, "they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so."—Acts 17:10, 11.

What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: "According to Paul's custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures]."

Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: "It is written." "He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures."—Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27.

Thus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that "all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.

Since the Bible can 'set things straight,' it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching?

"Trinity" in the Bible?




A PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word  [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."

However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas—A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian's words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. Then it cautions: "But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology."

Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures




WHILE the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament") reveal?

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."

Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: "The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."—Italics ours.

An examination of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves will bear out these comments. Thus, there is no clear teaching of a Trinity in the first 39 books of the Bible that make up the true canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures.

Testimony of the Greek Scriptures




WELL, then, do the Christian Greek Scriptures ("New Testament") speak clearly of a Trinity?

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

Jesuit Fortman states: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."

Bernhard Lohse says in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states: "The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 'The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence' [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth]."

Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."—Origin and Evolution of Religion.

Historian Arthur Weigall notes: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."—The Paganism in Our Christianity.

Thus, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity.

Taught by Early Christians?




DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians:

"Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."—The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."—The Paganism in Our Christianity.

"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."—Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught




THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ's birth. What they taught is of interest.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.

"There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead."—The Triune God


Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."

Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact."

Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.  

Answer
Chuck,

I'm enjoying this conversation; don't know if we're going to see eye-to-eye on it, but it's fun and rewarding just the same. Hope the length of my responses doesn't bore you too much.

Nice article, and I agree with the article's observation about the origin of the Trinity concept. The simple fact is that, even into New Testament times and even in the immediate expansion of the church after the church fathers, the primary consideration was and continues to be that there is one God.

The concept of the Trinity is a device intended to help Man grasp how we can have on one hand, a monotheistic faith, and on the other hand, acknowledge Jesus and the Spirit as divine entities. Because we cannot allow ourselves to have three divine entities, we need a device to allow us to hold these two seemingly opposing ideas.

This question in fact is why it took a church council and several years (and a few Heretic! charges) to come to terms with an acceptable device that allows the Son and the Spirit to be divine, existing from the beginning (actually, without beginning), and yet admit of only one God.

And so the Trinity is a concept for us, not necessarily a definition of God. I don't know that one must either understand or accept all the implications of the Trinity concept in order to be saved or to be accepted as a God follower or Christian. Since we cannot, with our finite minds understand an infinite being, it would be silly to insist that anyone fully grasp the mechanics of God's existence. We might have a problem if someone wanted to deny the divinity of Jesus or the Spirit, but their divinity does not adhere to itself all the ideas inherent in the Trinity concept.

There are two statements in the article that I think miss the point entirely however. The statements...

"IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God's revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is."

..and...

"Since the Bible can 'set things straight,' it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be."

...are shooting at the wrong target. Divine revelation isn't intended to define or illustrate the mechanics of God's existence; Scripture assumes the existence of God and moves right past that debate. In the same light, it is irrelevant to the point of Scripture that we be provided an in-depth description of the essence of God or the inner workings and relationships of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit - or the Godhead and anything else in Creation (e.g., how does God keep the planets in space?).

Well then, what is the point of Scripture? The point of Scripture is two fold:

1. It reveals God's character (love, compassion, empathy, other-focused) and His intent for Man (to live in the same character in which God made him rather than selfishly and inward-focused).

2. To example that character in physical time and physical space. The life of Jesus not only exampled the character of God, but also exampled the way in which we were made to live. When we learn from Jesus, we don't just learn about God, but about ourselves and how we are really meant to live.

The purpose of Scripture then, is not to answer every question we can come up with, but rather it has a somewhat narrow purpose. The essences and mechanics of God's existence are not within that scope and so we find ourselves trying to develop concepts that satisfy to a large degree the various parts of our faith that we actually are told (e.g., there is one God, but the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all divine).

The good news is that we don't need to figure that out to know God. What we can know about God (and I believe we can actually know God, not just know about Him) is His care for Man and the planet, and that He intends us to live in the Creation as He would live if He did (which He did, in the example of Jesus).

The Orthodox church argues essentially what I have said in previous posts. There is one God that consists or has energies that we perceive as the Son and the Spirit. The Orthodox do not argue that we can know the essence of God, but only the energies of His activities. This is also a device, an attempt to explain what we cannot know. The Orthodox, according to Ware, perceive the Father, Son, and Spirit as a communal entity, and Ware draws the tentative contrast with Roman Catholic concepts of a more hierarchical existence (e.g., the Father is in charge and directs the activities of the others). However, Ware will admit that the difference isn't that stark, and the Orthodox do accept the idea of the Father as the motivational force within the Three.

I prefer to accept the fact that there are things that I cannot know, nor do I need to know in order to see God in the world and allow Him to conform me to Himself. In the same vein, I don't need to know how gravity works in order to shy away from jumping off the bridge.

Thanks for providing the article; it was fun reading although I think the author was only highlighting text he wanted to highlight rather than include some of the discussion I have provided above. It's nice that some church fathers have said various things, but we need to keep in mind that they were trying to do the same thing we try to do - understand something that we cannot - and don't need to.

Hope you're having a great week!