Broaching the Trinity: Three Persons?

[TheLightWithin]

The three are and act independently, hence ...

It does seem to challenge the idea of what is meant by monotheism

Oneness Pentecostals are both unitarian and have a very high Christology - namely they think Jesus is all members of the trinity.
I've heard their ideas described as "modalism" which was denounced as wrong/heretical in the early days.
What I'd like to understand better is what it is about these alternatives schools of thought that make them definitively "wrong" or definitely divergent from reality and truth... what is definitively known about God that makes these alternate theories such poor theories, or is it entirely ancient church politics and not metaphysical reality which is being attested to at all?
(This is the kind of thing I hoped to address in my thread on Heterodoxy, but that kind of went in a different direction)
I'm asking a metaphysical question, which may require religious philosophy in addition to theology.

 

[Thomas]

It does seem to challenge the idea of what is meant by monotheism

Well it certainly challenges us ...

What I'd like to understand better is what it is about these alternatives schools of thought that make them definitively "wrong" or definitely divergent from reality and truth... what is definitively known about God that makes these alternate theories such poor theories, or is it entirely ancient church politics and not metaphysical reality which is being attested to at all?

Big questions.

Put simply, there's a right way and a wrong way to think about it ... and the conclusion is that if the wrong way is one degree off, then the divergence from truth gets bigger and bigger ... and that can have profound implications for theology.

There is a debate about the priority of theological speculation over pastoral necessity ... as the Church got bigger, the bishops, who were not necessarily theologians, had top 'care for the flock' as it were.

Modern critics like to see it all in terms of 'control', 'politics' and so on, and certainly there's an element of that, but that's not all of it, and it's a superficial understanding with regard to religion as such. And you end up people talking about it as it it's a given, when it's not. Especially in the early days, when the church simply wasn't that big or institutionalised to think about itself that way.

It's certainly a valid debate, but it's one above my pay-grade, and the idea that it is just about power and control and coercion is a rather banal generality.

And the Church was being squeezed for its beliefs from all sides, by the Roman state, by Hellenic philosophers, Jewish authorities, as well as populist populist cultic beliefs of all sorts – so it was seen that if the Church could not offer a 'this is what it is' argument for its existence, it would not last long.

+++

Not to go into the Arian thing again, but while the theologians were arguing this contra that, there were running street battles between mobs who'd formed factions accordingly. There had been running street-battles in Rome in the 60s, between Jews and Christians – religion was a serious issue.

 

[Thomas]

Trinitarian heresies:

Monarchianism/Subordinationism.
The idea that the Son is subordinate to the Father is early, and prior to the focus on the nature of trinitarian relations. It is based on asserting verses such as "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) over and against those such as "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

(A father is always 'greater than' the son (being prior), but both are equally human, the father is not more human than the son, nor the son less human than the father. That the obligation is always from the son to the father is a moral obligation, even if reversed by circumstance.)

Docetism (2nd century)
Belief that Jesus' physical body is an illusion, as is the crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seems to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality, he is incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence cannot not physically suffer or die.

Adoptionism (2nd century)
Belief that Jesus is born human and not divine, but by his supreme virtue is adopted (at His baptism) as the "Son of God" by the descent of the Holy Spirit on him. The question then is, is that sonship merely a moral designation?

Modalism/Sabellianism (3rd century)
Belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three characterisations of one God, just the one 'person' rather than three distinct 'persons' in one God.
A common erroneous analogy likening the Trinity to 'water, ice and steam', that is, water in different states, or that the one person can be 'son, husband and father' at the same time.

Apollinarism (4th century)
Belief that Jesus has a human body and soul, but a divine mind.

Arianism and semiarianisms (4th century)
Belief that the Father is an uncreated divine nature, whereas the Son is a created divine nature, inevitably leading to the son being a demigod and thence bitheism.

Macedonians/Pneumatomachians (4th century)
Saw Jesus as divine, agreed with Nicaea in 325, but sees the Holy Spirit as a creation of the Son.

Nestorianism (5th century)
Belief that Jesus is a natural union between the Flesh and the Word, thus not identical, to the divine Son of God.

Monophysitism/Eutychianism (6th century)
Belief that Christ's divine nature subsumed his human nature, which effectively ceased to exist.
The Chalcedonian definition is Christ is one person of two natures, one divine and one human.
later Miaphysitism holds that the human and divine natures of Christ were united as one divine-human nature in the Incarnation.

Monothelitism (7th century)
Belief that Jesus has two natures but only one will.
(Chalcedon asserts two wills (human and divine) corresponding to their respective natures.

Patripassianism
Belief that the Father and Son are not two distinct persons, and thus God the Father suffered on the cross as Jesus.

 

[bowwow]

Trinitarian heresies:

Monarchianism/Subordinationism.
The idea that the Son is subordinate to the Father is early, and prior to the focus on the nature of trinitarian relations. It is based on asserting verses such as "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) over and against those such as "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

(A father is always 'greater than' the son (being prior), but both are equally human, the father is not more human than the son, nor the son less human than the father. That the obligation is always from the son to the father is a moral obligation, even if reversed by circumstance.)

Docetism (2nd century)
Belief that Jesus' physical body is an illusion, as is the crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seems to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality, he is incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence cannot not physically suffer or die.

Adoptionism (2nd century)
Belief that Jesus is born human and not divine, but by his supreme virtue is adopted (at His baptism) as the "Son of God" by the descent of the Holy Spirit on him. The question then is, is that sonship merely a moral designation?

Modalism/Sabellianism (3rd century)
Belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three characterisations of one God, just the one 'person' rather than three distinct 'persons' in one God.
A common erroneous analogy likening the Trinity to 'water, ice and steam', that is, water in different states, or that the one person can be 'son, husband and father' at the same time.

Apollinarism (4th century)
Belief that Jesus has a human body and soul, but a divine mind.

Arianism and semiarianisms (4th century)
Belief that the Father is an uncreated divine nature, whereas the Son is a created divine nature, inevitably leading to the son being a demigod and thence bitheism.

Macedonians/Pneumatomachians (4th century)
Saw Jesus as divine, agreed with Nicaea in 325, but sees the Holy Spirit as a creation of the Son.

Nestorianism (5th century)
Belief that Jesus is a natural union between the Flesh and the Word, thus not identical, to the divine Son of God.

Monophysitism/Eutychianism (6th century)
Belief that Christ's divine nature subsumed his human nature, which effectively ceased to exist.
The Chalcedonian definition is Christ is one person of two natures, one divine and one human.
later Miaphysitism holds that the human and divine natures of Christ were united as one divine-human nature in the Incarnation.

Monothelitism (7th century)
Belief that Jesus has two natures but only one will.
(Chalcedon asserts two wills (human and divine) corresponding to their respective natures.

Patripassianism
Belief that the Father and Son are not two distinct persons, and thus God the Father suffered on the cross as Jesus.

I believe that Trinity - along with pre-trib/Dispensationalism are the most heretical teachings in Christianity. I stay out of church because of these two. Even as a young man everybody around me believed in these two and never said anything to anybody that I DON'T! I found out that when I came out of the Trinitarian closet - most Christians were no longer my friends.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I believe that Trinity - along with pre-trib/Dispensationalism are the most heretical teachings in Christianity. I stay out of church because of these two. Even as a young man everybody around me believed in these two and never said anything to anybody that I DON'T! I found out that when I came out of the Trinitarian closet - most Christians were no longer my friends.

As a disciple of Christ and that being the most important part of my life it is hard for me to have a deep emotional connection to people that don't share my beliefs. How can you maintain an intimate friendship with someone that you can't have the most important thing in your life in common. This is why we are called to be equally yoked with one another. Jesus had His close circle of friends with which He had an intimate friendship with and then there were the others.

I spent many years mentoring my sister in law. And then she went on her own journey that led her to what I consider false teachings. When trying to lead her back to biblical teaching it caused fights and division. Now we are longer close because of our faiths. She also convinced my brother of these teachings and he and I are no longerc close. We still love each other but we no longer share the most important thing in our lives.

You can't blame it on your former Christian friends. To them your beliefs are heretical. What do you really have in common with each other anymore?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Heresy is all relative..
..relative to an established creed.

The devil seeks to divide .. divide & rule .. the oldest trick in the book.
Faith is between G-d and oneself. He has given us intelligence for a reason.

Birds of a feather flock together.
There's plenty to choose from.

Peacocks are nice.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Trinitarian heresies:

I appreciate you listing them out.
What I don't grok is why they are 'wrong'. Or thought to be wrong.
Does the average believer accidentally believe any of those things? I suspect so. Just hearing people talk over the years, or reading something, seeing a TV show where people talk about it, etc.
I do theorize I might need a graduate course in "heresiology" with a chaser of metaphysics to wash it down

 

[TheLightWithin]

Modern critics like to see it all in terms of 'control', 'politics' and so on, and certainly there's an element of that, but that's not all of it, and it's a superficial understanding with regard to religion as such. And you end up people talking about it as it it's a given, when it's not. Especially in the early days, when the church simply wasn't that big or institutionalised to think about itself that way.

It's certainly a valid debate, but it's one above my pay-grade, and the idea that it is just about power and control and coercion is a rather banal generality.

Heresiology: The invention of ‘heresy’ and ‘schism’ (Chapter 12) - The Cambridge History of Christianity

The Cambridge History of Christianity - August 2007

www.cambridge.org

I think this book, or the series, would be useful for me, but what an investment! Too rich for my blood!
It appears from the synopsis that they are looking pretty hard at the political/organizational side of things.

I hope to identify something that talks more about the various heresies in regard to metaphysical reality, what is it about the various so called heresies are factually wrong, in comparison with orthodoxy?

After all, in some other Abrahamic faiths, the trinitarian idea itself may seem faintly heretical, maybe greatly so -- and how would they explain that, in terms of known metaphysical properties of God?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Of course there's this

Know the Heretics| Online Course

In the Know the Heretics online course, scholar and author Justin Holcomb provides an accessible "travel guide" to the most significant heresies throughout Christian history.

courses.zondervanacademic.com

It would be interesting to see if their arguments make sense/are persuasive.
Do they know what they are talking about, or is it just words?
As fascinating as theology and philosophy both are, I often wonder that.

If I were to sign up for it, I'd report back about it later.

 

[Thomas]

Heresy is all relative..
..relative to an established creed.

Quite.

Heresy traces back to the Greek verb to 'choose' – so we have options, choices, differences or distinctions.

Theologians used the term in reference to various sects in the New Testament, eg Sadducees and Pharisees, and then with regard to heterodox (heteros=other, doxa = opinion) where their beliefs are distinct from the mainline, which assumed itself orthodox (ortho=straight/right, doxa=opinion).

Same in Islam, same in most religions. Where the problems arise is when one lot decides it's necessary, often for their own salvation, to clobber the other lot ... and human history rolls on ...

 

[Thomas]

I appreciate you listing them out.
What I don't grok is why they are 'wrong'. Or thought to be wrong.

Well take Docetism.

The belief that Jesus was an angelic form, who only appears to be human. So He does not hunger or thirst, does not suffer, etc. he only appears to be crucified, and only appears to die, so He appears to be resurrected.

So what does that mean for us? Nothing. It's all just appearances, with no substantial actuality at all. Nothing Jesus said or did is true, and nothing has changed – the whole exercise was a waste of time, other than implanting a few notions like 'love your neighbour' (already present in Judaism).

Arianism I've dealt with at length, a doctrine that opens itself up to the accusation of polytheism, against which it has no defence.

There is a foundation belief that 'God became man that man might become God', and the orthodox path seeks to preserve that as an eschatalogical reality, whereas follow most heresies to their logical conclusions and that door closes ...

Jesus said:
"That all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they too might be [one] in us, so that the cosmos may have faith that you sent me forth ... that they may be one just as we are one ... in them and you in me, that they might be brought to completion in one, so that the cosmos might know that you sent me forth, and loved them just as you loved me ... " (John 17:21-23)

Orthodoxy preserves the idea that Jesus is talking about more than just a moral unity, a like-mindedness, He's talking about divine union, and so the doctrine of theosis or divinisation ... the heresies close that door ...

+++

 

[muhammad_isa]

Same in Islam, same in most religions. Where the problems arise is when one lot decides it's necessary, often for their own salvation, to clobber the other lot ... and human history rolls on ...

Mmm .. some Muslims can be rather sectarian, dismissing others as "disbelievers" .. as do many
Christians.

However, I would say the main thing that takes a person 'out of Islam', would be denouncing
the 5 pillars.
i.e. 1. kalima (there is only One God, and Muhammad is His prophet)
2. ritual salat 5 times a day (prayer)
3. fasting in Ramadan
4. Zakat - 2.5% of wealth yearly in community charity
5. Haj - pilgrimage to Macca

The vast majority believe in the 5 pillars, but some Muslims still like to ostrasize others.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Arianism I've dealt with at length, a doctrine that opens itself up to the accusation of polytheism, against which it has no defence..

Yes, and as you know, we are not in agreement about it .. at all at all.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Where the problems arise is when one lot decides it's necessary, often for their own salvation, to clobber the other lot ...

that indeed is the problem

 

[TheLightWithin]

Orthodoxy preserves the idea that Jesus is talking about more than just a moral unity, a like-mindedness, He's talking about divine union, and so the doctrine of theosis or divinisation ... the heresies close that door ...

the heresies close that door ...

Interesting

 

[TheLightWithin]

I do have this book coming

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0520383176?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title

There was a very affordable used copy I picked up, despite the insane expense of the other offerings!

Hope it wasn't a no-no to put the link to the commercial site - I think we've done that before on the forum, just to show the example of what book to get.

 

[TheLightWithin]

There is a foundation belief that 'God became man that man might become God', and the orthodox path seeks to preserve that as an eschatalogical reality, whereas follow most heresies to their logical conclusions and that door closes ...

Why is Trinitarianism more correct than Binitarianism? (Armstrong heterodoxy, but probably much older)

 

[Thomas]

Why is Trinitarianism more correct than Binitarianism? (Armstrong heterodoxy, but probably much older)

Christian binitarianism asserts God is One – but argues a "twoness", the Son in a subordinate relation to the Father.

In Binitarianism the Holy Spirit is seen as the same as the Son, as embodied in Him.

In The Shepherd of Hermas, explaining the Son, an angel declares:
"6[59]:5 The Holy Pre-existent Spirit. Which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that He desired. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was subject unto the Spirit, walking honourably in holiness and purity, without in any way defiling the Spirit..." (Parable V)

Early Christian binitarianism see the Spirit as a person of God's being, who lived in Jesus, or as Jesus's pre-existent, co-eternal divine nature – either way, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person, whereas in Trinitarian theology they are two.

The Council of Nicaea (325) opposed the binitarianism of Arius, but was unsuccessful in that various forms of 'semi-Arian' doctrines continued to emerge, until the Council of Constantinople (381), when the Trinity was affirmed.

Epiphanius of Salamis noted, “Semi-Arians ... hold the truly orthodox view of the Son, that he was forever with the Father ... but has been begotten without beginning and not in time ... But all of these blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and do not count him in the Godhead with the Father and the Son.”

Binitarianism effectively wasted away, and Trinitarianism emerged as the Orthodox theology.

Then ... a resurgence in America, with the emergence of various persons who are entrusted with visions, or revelatory insights into the meaning of Scripture, and who found effectively what are new religions under the banner of Christianity ... their beliefs are forms of Semi-Arian binitarianism.

Scripture mentions prayer to the Father, and to the Son, but the Holy Spirit is never prayed to nor worshiped in the Bible. In Revelations the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. Thus modern binitarianism concluded that this is because the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person, but the mind, character, power, and active presence of God.

Trinitarianism holds the Holy Spirit is a person, "another paraclete" (John 14:16) whom Jesus speaks of as a being in his own right (cf John 16).

 

[TheLightWithin]

Epiphanius of Salamis noted, “Semi-Arians ... hold the truly orthodox view of the Son, that he was forever with the Father ... but has been begotten without beginning and not in time ... But all of these blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and do not count him in the Godhead with the Father and the Son.”

I had the feeling that is what might be meant by "blasphemy against the holy spirit" being "the unforgivable sin"
People speculate about that all the time, what is the meaning of that phrase, but I had a suspicion it had to do with counting personhood or something. Seems like incredible overkill to perceive it as an unforgivable sin, however, in comparison to say... a lot of other things?

Also, weren't the earliest Christians Binitarian?
(I was told this as a kid, and I have been seeing a lot of it around as I browse through things. I can find references if need be, would just have to look up / look around)

STILL

What gets me about persecution of heresies is this: All these people who cannot agree on the factual descriptions of the admittedly invisible God, did NOT have to be enemies. Could they not have agreed to disagree and existed in some kind of fellowship serving the poor or something?

The fact they did NOT, but made these philosophical/theological speculations a matter of life and death, is unconscionable to me.

 

[Thomas]

I had the feeling that is what might be meant by "blasphemy against the holy spirit" being "the unforgivable sin"
People speculate about that all the time, what is the meaning of that phrase, but I had a suspicion it had to do with counting personhood or something. Seems like incredible overkill to perceive it as an unforgivable sin, however, in comparison to say... a lot of other things?

I'd say it's unforgivable because we choose not to be forgiven. We reject the offer of love.

Also, weren't the earliest Christians Binitarian?
(I was told this as a kid, and I have been seeing a lot of it around as I browse through things. I can find references if need be, would just have to look up / look around)

Well they were a lot of things ... binitarian in that they believed the Father and the Son are persons, and the Holy Spirit is the power of one or the other, and not a 'person' as such.

What gets me about persecution of heresies is this: All these people who cannot agree on the factual descriptions of the admittedly invisible God, did NOT have to be enemies. Could they not have agreed to disagree and existed in some kind of fellowship serving the poor or something?

You mean why can we not just love one another?

The fact they did NOT, but made these philosophical/theological speculations a matter of life and death, is unconscionable to me.

Well, to be fair, it was, as far as they were concerned.

If you feel strongly about something, it becomes a principle that you live by ... they died for what they believed in, in the same way that people die in defence of their beliefs today.

Today, most people don't believe that much ... it's all negotiable ...