The Trinity

PDN

Some questions came up in another thread to do with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Although the Trinity is normally considered fundamental to the Christian faith, we do have one or more Christian posters here who do not subscribe to the doctrine.

Basically, the Trinity is an attempt to adequately include three Biblical concepts. These are:

a) There is one God.
b) Scripture speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being God.
c) There is a clear distinction between the Father, Son and Spirit. (ie the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit).

For me, the Trinity would be similar to a scientific theory which offers the best (or even only) possible explanation of the data available. If an alternative, better theory was advanced that adequately comprised the above three truths then I would happily embrace it and jettison the concept of the Trinity. But, for 2000 years now, I don't see any such better suggestion.

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

Some questions came up in another thread to do with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Although the Trinity is normally considered fundamental to the Christian faith, we do have one or more Christian posters here who do not subscribe to the doctrine.

Basically, the Trinity is an attempt to adequately include three Biblical concepts. These are:

a) There is one God.
b) Scripture speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being God.
c) There is a clear distinction between the Father, Son and Spirit. (ie the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit).

For me, the Trinity would be similar to a scientific theory which offers the best (or even only) possible explanation of the data available. If an alternative, better theory was advanced that adequately comprised the above three truths then I would happily embrace it and jettison the concept of the Trinity. But, for 2000 years now, I don't see any such better suggestion.

Cathechism of the Catholic church.


The dogma of the Holy Trinity

[URL="javascript:openWindow('cr/253.htm');"]253[/URL] The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

[URL="javascript:openWindow('cr/254.htm');"]254[/URL] The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.
[URL="javascript:openWindow('cr/255.htm');"]255[/URL] The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

for a more in depth explanation visit http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#III

Turtwig

Silly question, perhaps??

Who has the least biggest role? Or are they all equal?

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Silly question, perhaps??

Who has the least biggest role? Or are they all equal?

The definition of being God is being the ultimate - so logically we should conclude that the Father, Son and Spirit are co-equal in power and glory.

However, theologians also speak about something called the Economic Trinity. This has nothing to do with money, but is derived from the Greek word for 'household management' oikonomia. This basically teaches that God the Son willingly submitted to the Father as a servant in order to die on the Cross and offer manking the opportunity to be saved. Similarly, God the Holy Spirit voluntarily submitted Himself to the Father and the Son so He could be sent by them on the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit also comes to glorify Jesus, not Himself.

This means, for Christians, that God the Son set an example for us in servant leadership - hence we should not be proud or demand respect because of any position or authority we might hold.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

The definition of being God is being the ultimate - so logically we should conclude that the Father, Son and Spirit are co-equal in power and glory.

However, theologians also speak about something called the Economic Trinity. This has nothing to do with money, but is derived from the Greek word for 'household management' oikonomia. This basically teaches that God the Son willingly submitted to the Father as a servant in order to die on the Cross and offer manking the opportunity to be saved. Similarly, God the Holy Spirit voluntarily submitted Himself to the Father and the Son so He could be sent by them on the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit also comes to glorify Jesus, not Himself.

This means, for Christians, that God the Son set an example for us in servant leadership - hence we should not be proud or demand respect because of any position or authority we might hold.

Wow, that's an fair and interesting take on power sharing.:)


I guess my obvious question is has the Father ever submitted to either the Holy Spirit or the Son, that we know of?

JimiTime

Would I be correct in saying the Son, only became 'the Son' at Jesus' conception? Before which he was 'The Word' and after which he was both 'The Word' and 'The Son'?

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

Would I be correct in saying the Son, only became 'the Son' at Jesus' conception? Before which he was 'The Word' and after which he was both 'The Word' and 'The Son'?

Note : Non Christian.

I dunno, I'm guessing an answer here because this something I never really understood about Christianity. The Son is begotten from the father, so I'd say that was at Jesus's conception, the question is though when exactly was that? I think Jesus being God was always there, so the Son and the Holy Spirit never actually 'became' - if that makes any sense ???

chozometroid

I see the trinity pretty much at Stephentlig posted, even though I'm not a Catholic.
God is three coeternal persons in one.

One thing not yet mentioned is that the three have different roles. To respond to Malty_T's post about if the Father has ever submitted to the Holy Spirit or Son, I would say "no."


Here is my personal take on the nature of the trinity:

I see that each member of the trinity has certain qualities or roles.


The Father being the Originator, the Source, the Judge. I see the Father as the point of ultimate energy and knowledge. All that comes from Him is life and truth as given by His divine attritube. He is the Mind which has provided the framework for the spiritual and physical world.

John 1:18 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,[a] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

The Word/Son is the mediator between God and His creation and His avatar representing Him to His creation (perhaps even the angels). He demonstrates the character of God and makes Him personal. I believe the Son is God's active agent in creating and dealing with His creation.

Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

The Holy Spirit is literally the Spirit of God. He is the flowing Spirit that pervades all of God's creation, and allows His creation to share in His divine nature. The Spirit is the source of life and direct line to God's power. It is what empowered Christ/The Son/The Word when He became man in the flesh. It is the actual spirit of God which quite literally dwells in us, allowing us think with a spiritual mind, helping us to recognize sin, providing gifts, and affecting our physical being.

1 Corinthians 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.


Even though I don't believe the trinity can be fully comprehended, here is the simplest description I can give to explain it (just a possiblity, not something I'm saying is absolutely true):

God the Father is the center, the source of life. From Him, He casts His avatar The Son out to represent Him in a way His creation can comprehend. The Father's Spirit flows from Him, which, bearing God's nature, allows His nature to spread to others.
So, the Father is the core, the Son is an external agent, and the Spirit is an internal agent.

I will also propose that perhaps there is no limit to the number of agents God is represented by. We just know of three given in the Bible. Maybe there is the Son because of the need for a Redeemer, and the Spirit because of the need for a Comforter.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Note : Non Christian.

I dunno, I'm guessing an answer here because this something I never really understood about Christianity. The Son is begotten from the father, so I'd say that was at Jesus's conception, the question is though when exactly was that? I think Jesus being God was always there, so the Son and the Holy Spirit never actually 'became' - if that makes any sense ???

Actually it's usually seen as being the other way round. The second Person of the Trinity is, according to the Nicene Creed, considered to be the "eternally begotten Son" of God the Father. So He was always God the Son, even before the incarnation.

However, He only became 'Jesus' when He was conceived in the womb of Mary and took on human nature.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Actually it's usually seen as being the other way round. The second Person of the Trinity is, according to the Nicene Creed, considered to be the "eternally begotten Son" of God the Father. So He was always God the Son, even before the incarnation.

What is the basis of this?

Soul Winner

Even in the Old Testament there is a plurality of beings. Verse 1 of Genesis states: "In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the Earth." Elohim is the plural for El, El being one of the names for God simply translated "God". So if Elohim is plural for God then it is translated as "Gods". Which means that Genesis 1 should read: "In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth." And later in Genesis God says: "Let us make Adam in our own image."

Another name for God in the OT was "The LORD of Hosts" which literally translates: "The LORD of the Gods of the Hosts." Which means that there is one supreme God and many subordinate Gods (possible the angels). Lucifer (which means light bearer) is described as the 'crowning' cherub which covers, and the cherubs are the highest ranking in the angelology of the Jews, which means that he was top dog of the cherubs, pretty high up but still under the supreme God, which is possibly what pissed him off.

John's Gospel makes it clear that Christ was the speaking agent of God, through which He created everything including the angels, God's Word, the Logos which was in the beginning was literally facing THE God and was God, co-equal with the Father, of the same essence as THE God but also separate and distinct and this same Logos John says became flesh and dwelt amongst us called Jesus of Nazareth who emptied Himself of His power and stepped down from His throne to humble Himself unto death so that He could provide the way of salvation for us sinners.

The Trinity is a mind boggling concept and our puny brains cannot understand it. Even that great Apostle Paul said that he sees through a glass darkly but then face to face. It will all become clear once get over there.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

What is the basis of this?

I believe that John 3:16 is relevant here. It says that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. This would imply that the Son came before the giving.

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Trinity is a mind boggling concept and our puny brains cannot understand it. Even that great Apostle Paul said that he sees through a glass darkly but then face to face. It will all become clear once get over there.

I would put this another way.

God is a mind boggling concept and our puny brains cannot understand it, and the trinity is an attempt to get a grasp of it. Even that great Apostle Paul said that he sees through a glass darkly but then face to face. It will all become clear once get over there

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I believe that John 3:16 is relevant here. It says that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. This would imply that the Son came before the giving.

Does it? Of course that is possible, but it doesn't exclusively imply that surely? Also, is it relevant to the trinity doctrine that the Son was the Son before the incarnation?

Soul Winner

JimiTime wrote: »

I would put this another way.

God is a mind boggling concept and our puny brains cannot understand it, and the trinity is an attempt to get a grasp of it. Even that great Apostle Paul said that he sees through a glass darkly but then face to face. It will all become clear once get over there

That works too.

Fanny Cradock

I think that Jackass posted a diagram a while back that went some way to explaining what Christian believe to be the relationship between the members of The Trinity. Maybe he can post it again.

PDN wrote: »

For me, the Trinity would be similar to a scientific theory which offers the best (or even only) possible explanation of the data available. If an alternative, better theory was advanced that adequately comprised the above three truths then I would happily embrace it and jettison the concept of the Trinity. But, for 2000 years now, I don't see any such better suggestion.

Of course, there are those who would point out that the The Trinity is never expressly detailed anywhere in the bible. Therefore the concept is just a fiction (wilful of otherwise). Presumably these people dismiss the notion of revelation.

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course, there are those who would point out that the The Trinity is never expressly detailed anywhere in the bible. Therefore the concept is just a fiction (wilful of otherwise). Presumably these people dismiss the notion of revelation.

This is a standard line taken by critics of the doctrine of the Trinity, such as apologists for Islam. It is argued that the doctrine developed gradually over several centuries, often being clarified as responses to various heterodox movements that, because their doctrines differed from the doctrine that became accepted, were labelled as heresies. Hence, it is asserted, the doctrine of the Trinity is a human creation rather than an accurate description of God.

I'm interested in the theological arguments that attempt to show that God must necessarily be a trinity. Certainly the trinity doctrine can make sense of certain scriptural passages, but even if the scripture had not revealed this, indeed, even if the world had not been created, God would still be a Trinity. One person to argue this is Richard Swinburne. His argument, very crudely summed up, goes as follows:

1. There are strong philosophical reasons for believing in the existence of at least one divine person, someone who is essentially omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly free, and eternal. Call this person "God the Father".

2. A divine person is a perfectly good person, and that involves being a loving person. A loving person needs another person to love ("loving" oneself isn't enough - this is merely egotism). A perfectly good solitary person would seek to bring about another such person who would be the object of the original person's love, and at the same time would love the original person. Call the second person "God the Son", though this should not be taken as a relationship of parenthood.

3. The second person cannot have been created at a point in time, because this would imply that, before the second person was created, God the Father did not love, and hence was not perfect. So the Father must always cause the Son to exist, and the Father would not exist at all unless he caused the Son to exist.

4. Those who love fully want to share their love with others rather than selfishly monopolising their love. Hence, God the Father and God the Son need a third person in respect of whom they can co-operate in sharing their love. Call the third person "God the Holy Spirit".

So Swinburne, following many previous theologians (in his book Was Jesus God? [Oxford University Press, 2008], which I am summarising, Swinburne traces this argument back to Richard of St Victor in the 12th century), argues that God must be a Trinity - God has to consist of no less than three divine persons, while any more than three are not logically necessary. But on the basis that any God must be effectively omnipotent, there cannot be more than one such being. Hence we must have one God, who has three persons. Although God the Son depends on God the Father (and hence is "eternally begotten"), and God the Holy Spirit depends on both God the Father and God the Son (and hence "proceeds from the Father and the Son"), all three persons have to exist in the Godhead.

Now, this is a summary of about 40 pages of Swinburne's book, which is itself based on his much more substantial book The Existence of God. Like other philosophical arguments, there are various premises and assumptions that are open to challenge. Do other Christians agree with Swinburne that it is important to demonstrate not just that God happens to be a Trinity, but that God must be a Trinity?

Morbert

hivizman wrote: »

I'm interested in the theological arguments that attempt to show that God must necessarily be a trinity. Certainly the trinity doctrine can make sense of certain scriptural passages, but even if the scripture had not revealed this, indeed, even if the world had not been created, God would still be a Trinity. One person to argue this is Richard Swinburne. His argument, very crudely summed up, goes as follows:

1. There are strong philosophical reasons for believing in the existence of at least one divine person, someone who is essentially omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly free, and eternal. Call this person "God the Father".

2. A divine person is a perfectly good person, and that involves being a loving person. A loving person needs another person to love ("loving" oneself isn't enough - this is merely egotism). A perfectly good solitary person would seek to bring about another such person who would be the object of the original person's love, and at the same time would love the original person. Call the second person "God the Son", though this should not be taken as a relationship of parenthood.

3. The second person cannot have been created at a point in time, because this would imply that, before the second person was created, God the Father did not love, and hence was not perfect. So the Father must always cause the Son to exist, and the Father would not exist at all unless he caused the Son to exist.

4. Those who love fully want to share their love with others rather than selfishly monopolising their love. Hence, God the Father and God the Son need a third person in respect of whom they can co-operate in sharing their love. Call the third person "God the Holy Spirit".

So Swinburne, following many previous theologians (in his book Was Jesus God? [Oxford University Press, 2008], which I am summarising, Swinburne traces this argument back to Richard of St Victor in the 12th century), argues that God must be a Trinity - God has to consist of no less than three divine persons, while any more than three are not logically necessary. But on the basis that any God must be effectively omnipotent, there cannot be more than one such being. Hence we must have one God, who has three persons. Although God the Son depends on God the Father (and hence is "eternally begotten"), and God the Holy Spirit depends on both God the Father and God the Son (and hence "proceeds from the Father and the Son"), all three persons have to exist in the Godhead.

Now, this is a summary of about 40 pages of Swinburne's book, which is itself based on his much more substantial book The Existence of God. Like other philosophical arguments, there are various premises and assumptions that are open to challenge. Do other Christians agree with Swinburne that it is important to demonstrate not just that God happens to be a Trinity, but that God must be a Trinity?

These type of philosophical arguments always end up evapourating. As you say, there are quite a few glaring assumptions in there that Christians certainly don't have to adopt. (E.g A God of love is selfish if He only loves one person; A timeless God of love is imperfect if there are points in time when He did not love; God can be described as having an ego etc. etc.). Ultimately, Swinburne is assuming that perfection is a set of standards that God must adhere to. It would be far more prudent and consistent to assume that notions of love and selflessness, and even perfection, are defined by God's will, rather than the other way around.

I always found the trinity to be a case of bad language, similar to the way Schrodinger's cat is often mislabelled as "dead and alive". It would seem to be far safer to demote the notion of the Trinity from a necessary attribute of God to the means in which God is experienced by mankind.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

Ultimately, Swinburne is assuming that perfection is a set of standards that God must adhere to. It would be far more prudent and consistent to assume that notions of love and selflessness, and even perfection, are defined by God's will, rather than the other way around.

So perfection (and I assume we can all agree that we are talking about perfect goodness) is not a set state of being or doing, it's all relativistic?

PDN

hivizman wrote: »

This is a standard line taken by critics of the doctrine of the Trinity, such as apologists for Islam. It is argued that the doctrine developed gradually over several centuries, often being clarified as responses to various heterodox movements that, because their doctrines differed from the doctrine that became accepted, were labelled as heresies. Hence, it is asserted, the doctrine of the Trinity is a human creation rather than an accurate description of God.

I'm interested in the theological arguments that attempt to show that God must necessarily be a trinity. Certainly the trinity doctrine can make sense of certain scriptural passages, but even if the scripture had not revealed this, indeed, even if the world had not been created, God would still be a Trinity. One person to argue this is Richard Swinburne. His argument, very crudely summed up, goes as follows:

1. There are strong philosophical reasons for believing in the existence of at least one divine person, someone who is essentially omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly free, and eternal. Call this person "God the Father".

2. A divine person is a perfectly good person, and that involves being a loving person. A loving person needs another person to love ("loving" oneself isn't enough - this is merely egotism). A perfectly good solitary person would seek to bring about another such person who would be the object of the original person's love, and at the same time would love the original person. Call the second person "God the Son", though this should not be taken as a relationship of parenthood.

3. The second person cannot have been created at a point in time, because this would imply that, before the second person was created, God the Father did not love, and hence was not perfect. So the Father must always cause the Son to exist, and the Father would not exist at all unless he caused the Son to exist.

4. Those who love fully want to share their love with others rather than selfishly monopolising their love. Hence, God the Father and God the Son need a third person in respect of whom they can co-operate in sharing their love. Call the third person "God the Holy Spirit".

So Swinburne, following many previous theologians (in his book Was Jesus God? [Oxford University Press, 2008], which I am summarising, Swinburne traces this argument back to Richard of St Victor in the 12th century), argues that God must be a Trinity - God has to consist of no less than three divine persons, while any more than three are not logically necessary. But on the basis that any God must be effectively omnipotent, there cannot be more than one such being. Hence we must have one God, who has three persons. Although God the Son depends on God the Father (and hence is "eternally begotten"), and God the Holy Spirit depends on both God the Father and God the Son (and hence "proceeds from the Father and the Son"), all three persons have to exist in the Godhead.

Now, this is a summary of about 40 pages of Swinburne's book, which is itself based on his much more substantial book The Existence of God. Like other philosophical arguments, there are various premises and assumptions that are open to challenge. Do other Christians agree with Swinburne that it is important to demonstrate not just that God happens to be a Trinity, but that God must be a Trinity?

I find Swinburne's arguments to be very unconvincing. If we did not have the various components that make up the Trinity doctrine revealed in Scripture (for example, if the Bible didn't mention that the Holy Spirit is God) then I don't think Swinburne or anyone else would ever have come up with such reasoning and there would be no doctrine of the Trinity.

I don't think that philosophically there must be a Trinity. I think the Trinity is the best, even the only, way to adequately explain the various statements about the nature of God that we find in Scripture.

This is a standard line taken by critics of the doctrine of the Trinity, such as apologists for Islam. It is argued that the doctrine developed gradually over several centuries, often being clarified as responses to various heterodox movements that, because their doctrines differed from the doctrine that became accepted, were labelled as heresies. Hence, it is asserted, the doctrine of the Trinity is a human creation rather than an accurate description of God.

I would broadly agree with the premises of that argument, but strongly disagree with its concusion.

The doctrine did develop over at least 2 or 3 centuries, and it did develop as a response to heterodox movements. But that does not mean it is not an accurate description of God.

The early Christians were not, for the most part, systematic thinkers. They accepted that Jesus was God. They accepted that the Holy Spirit was God. They were monotheists. They also could see that a distinction existed between the Father, Son and Spirit. But they didn't work out precisely how these truths fitted together - like many things revealed in the Bible (eg freewill and the sovereignty of God) they were content to hold these things in tension.

Then false teachings came along (eg Docetism, Modalism and Arianism) which made an attempt to explain these things systematically, but failed at some point or another to remain faithful to the biblical revelation about God. The early Church were able to recognise that these truths were unbiblical, but combatting what you don't believe is much harder if you've never worked out precisely what you do believe.

Therefore they had to come up with a way of understanding that demonstrated why the heretics were wrong, but also remained faithful to the biblical revelation. That inevitable ended up in the formulation of the Trinity.

Think of it this way: Imagine if Newton had been forced into articulating the Theory of Gravity because he had got so frustrated with daft and patently absurd theories that others were peddling. You could then say that the Theory of Gravity had been formed over years, and only in response to false theories that failed to fit with the available evidence. But that would not mean that the Theory of Gravity was not an accurate description of the physical phenomena.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So perfection (and I assume we can all agree that we are talking about perfect goodness) is not a set state of being or doing, it's all relativistic?

If there exists an absolute scale of goodness, not relative to God's will, then there is a question of where that scale comes from. Why are some things absolutely good and bad? What does it mean to even say something is absolutely good?

I have always understood theological concepts of good and bad as movement with God and against God respectively.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

I find Swinburne's arguments to be very unconvincing. If we did not have the various components that make up the Trinity doctrine revealed in Scripture (for example, if the Bible didn't mention that the Holy Spirit is God) then I don't think Swinburne or anyone else would ever have come up with such reasoning and there would be no doctrine of the Trinity.

I don't think that philosophically there must be a Trinity. I think the Trinity is the best, even the only, way to adequately explain the various statements about the nature of God that we find in Scripture.

. . .

The doctrine did develop over at least 2 or 3 centuries, and it did develop as a response to heterodox movements. But that does not mean it is not an accurate description of God.

The early Christians were not, for the most part, systematic thinkers. They accepted that Jesus was God. They accepted that the Holy Spirit was God. They were monotheists. They also could see that a distinction existed between the Father, Son and Spirit. But they didn't work out precisely how these truths fitted together - like many things revealed in the Bible (eg freewill and the sovereignty of God) they were content to hold these things in tension.

Then false teachings came along (eg Docetism, Modalism and Arianism) which made an attempt to explain these things systematically, but failed at some point or another to remain faithful to the biblical revelation about God. The early Church were able to recognise that these truths were unbiblical, but combatting what you don't believe is much harder if you've never worked out precisely what you do believe.

Therefore they had to come up with a way of understanding that demonstrated why the heretics were wrong, but also remained faithful to the biblical revelation. That inevitable ended up in the formulation of the Trinity.

Think of it this way: Imagine if Newton had been forced into articulating the Theory of Gravity because he had got so frustrated with daft and patently absurd theories that others were peddling. You could then say that the Theory of Gravity had been formed over years, and only in response to false theories that failed to fit with the available evidence. But that would not mean that the Theory of Gravity was not an accurate description of the physical phenomena.

You probably guessed from some of my wording ("it is argued that", "it is asserted that", etc.) that I don't find Swinburne's argument all that convincing either. I also agree with you that the historical fact that a doctrine or theory is developed and refined over a period of time doesn't in itself constitute grounds for us to be sceptical of its validity. We can perhaps take comfort from the historical fact that the doctrine of the Trinity eventually converged on a single interpretation (though is that actually correct - doesn't the Eastern Orthodox Church see the Holy Spirit as "proceeding" from the Father alone, not, as Western Churches believe, from the Father and the Son?) and that this interpretation has been around for many centuries.

However, it may be a little dangerous to compare the Doctrine of the Trinity with a scientific theory such as the Theory of Gravity. After all, certain aspects of Newton's theory have been overtaken by the Theory of Relativity. Is it conceivable that the Doctrine of the Trinity could be overtaken by subsequent revelation? I think that Swinburne and other philosophers of religion want to show the philosophical necessity of the Trinity in order to claim that the Trinity is true on a priori grounds rather than simply a contingent "fact" about our world that could turn out not to be the case.

I have just re-read the first chapter of John's Gospel, which makes much more sense when read through a Trinitarian lens, particularly the verse that is among my favourites: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son" (John 1:14, NRSV).

PDN

hivizman wrote: »

(though is that actually correct - doesn't the Eastern Orthodox Church see the Holy Spirit as "proceeding" from the Father alone, not, as Western Churches believe, from the Father and the Son?)

The infamous Filioque clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

Many churches (for example my own) content themselves with simply saying something along the lines of "We believe in one God eternally existing in three Persons; namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

The problem is, in my view, that when you try to pin the doctrine down in ever increasing detail then you end up declaring each other to be heretics over stuff that is as irrelevant as how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin. Because, inevitably, you are pushing your definition of 'orthodoxy' beyong the broad strokes of what Scripture reveals.

For example, the Nestorians were condemned as heretics because they believed that the human and divine natures of Christ were joined in conjunction rather than in hypostatic union. Now, I would just be happy to know that a Christian believed Jesus to be fully human and fully God - the exact intricacies of how that worked does not seem, to me, to be crucial. But, because of the excommunication and ostracising of the Nestorians, the spread of the Gospel into Asia and China was hindered and hamstrung for over 1000 years.

However, it may be a little dangerous to compare the Doctrine of the Trinity with a scientific theory such as the Theory of Gravity. After all, certain aspects of Newton's theory have been overtaken by the Theory of Relativity. Is it conceivable that the Doctrine of the Trinity could be overtaken by subsequent revelation?

I wouldn't have a problem with that happening. For me the Trinity represents the only current viable explanation for the biblical truths revealed in Scripture. But if a better explanation comes along then I'd be open to it.

Obviously that would cause problems for someone who accepts the Trinity as dogma received from tradition. But those of us who hold to sola scriptura should be happy with any other explanation that would be consistent with Scripture.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

If there exists an absolute scale of goodness, not relative to God's will, then there is a question of where that scale comes from. Why are some things absolutely good and bad? What does it mean to even say something is absolutely good?

I have always understood theological concepts of good and bad as movement with God and against God respectively.

Interesting. I don't have an opinion either way, but it seems that the two (God and goodness) are understood as being intrinsically interconnected. (If God is not good then he is not God, and if something existed before God, he is not the creator of all.) Given that in orthodox Christianity God is understood to be immutable, it must mean that concepts like good and bad would necessarily be unchanging if the are thought of as deeds and thoughts that stand for or against his will.

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Would I be correct in saying the Son, only became 'the Son' at Jesus' conception? Before which he was 'The Word' and after which he was both 'The Word' and 'The Son'?

Hello Jimi, I'm barging in here a bit but the Son and Word are the same and have always existed eternally. The divine nature of the Son didn't change when He assumed human flesh even though His divinity and humanity are perfectly united in 1 person. One person, 2 natures.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Malty_T wrote: »

Note : Non Christian.

I dunno, I'm guessing an answer here because this something I never really understood about Christianity. The Son is begotten from the father, so I'd say that was at Jesus's conception, the question is though when exactly was that? I think Jesus being God was always there, so the Son and the Holy Spirit never actually 'became' - if that makes any sense ???

Frank Sheed explains the Trinity very well in his book "Theology for Beginners". He says that the Father is the "origin" of the Trinity because the Father projects a perfect image of Himself and this perfect image is actually another person because it's so perfect. The Son is the Father's perfect idea of Himself or to put it another way the Son is a mirrow image of the Father.

The Holy Spirit is the result of the perfect bond between Father and Son. The Father is the perfect giver and the Son is the perfect receiver. But check Sheed. He explains it far better than I ever could!

JimiTime wrote: »

What is the basis of this?

I'd say John 1:1

God bless,
Noel.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

For example, the Nestorians were condemned as heretics because they believed that the human and divine natures of Christ were joined in conjunction rather than in hypostatic union. Now, I would just be happy to know that a Christian believed Jesus to be fully human and fully God - the exact intricacies of how that worked does not seem, to me, to be crucial. But, because of the excommunication and ostracising of the Nestorians, the spread of the Gospel into Asia and China was hindered and hamstrung for over 1000 years.

I've learnt a new word today, which is "synapheia" - a Greek word meaning "conjunction", used by Nestorians (or at least their critics such as Cyril of Alexandria) to signify their understanding of the relationship between the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ. If I understand things properly, the problem that the Nestorians had was with trying to make sense of sentences such as "Jesus slept", "Jesus ate" and "Jesus wept", when "God" was substituted for "Jesus". They had difficulty in conceiving that God could be described as doing, or suffering, things that were essentially human. They took this further by rejecting the notion of Mary as Theotokos, which could be loosely translated as "Mother of God". How can God, the eternal and uncreated, have a mother? They had no problem with Mary as Mother of Christ, however.

According to David L. Edwards's Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years (Cassell: 1997), when Nestorius (then Bishop of Constantinople) was being challenged by Cyril of Alexandria, he was summoned to defend his view that Mary was not Theotokos in a church dedicated to Mary Theotokos - so it's not surprising that Nestorius took the hint and didn't turn up.

By the way, completely off topic (apologies!), but reading the book by Edwards prompted me to check up on Amazon about the new book by Diarmaid MacCulloch A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (Allen Lane: 2009). Although the book came out only last month, and it's well over a thousand pages long, there's already a review on Amazon.co.uk. This compliments the book for covering "all the major personalities one would expect to find up to the modern age, including the dessert fathers." Is this one for Mr Pudding?

Slav

hivizman wrote: »

However, it may be a little dangerous to compare the Doctrine of the Trinity with a scientific theory such as the Theory of Gravity. After all, certain aspects of Newton's theory have been overtaken by the Theory of Relativity. Is it conceivable that the Doctrine of the Trinity could be overtaken by subsequent revelation?

It's not only conceivable but anticipated. As predicted by St. Paul in 1 Cor 12:9-12:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Christians accept that their knowledge is not comprehensive. Moreover, quite often knowledge is not necessarily required; indeed Christians did perfectly well without the concept Trinity being defined as a dogma for a couple of centuries. Strictly speaking it developed by Christians (using and further developing the philosophical categories they had on hand at the time) for no other reason then to distinguish themselves from a certain teaching that they saw as heretical.

In this view the comparison with Newton's theory and Theory of Relativity looks valid for me. Newton's Mechanics fits perfectly well withing Theory of Relativity. Newton's theory is still valid however the theory of relativity acknowledges its limits end extends it.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

The problem is, in my view, that when you try to pin the doctrine down in ever increasing detail then you end up declaring each other to be heretics over stuff that is as irrelevant as how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin. Because, inevitably, you are pushing your definition of 'orthodoxy' beyong the broad strokes of what Scripture reveals.

That's probably true to a certain extent but let's not forget that in the history of the Church (at very least until Medieval ages) all dogmas were defined only when there was a strong necessity, i.e. when it was not possible to keep orthodoxy and unity without defining what is (though more often what is not) orthodox.

For example, the Nestorians were condemned as heretics because they believed that the human and divine natures of Christ were joined in conjunction rather than in hypostatic union. Now, I would just be happy to know that a Christian believed Jesus to be fully human and fully God - the exact intricacies of how that worked does not seem, to me, to be crucial.

It was (and still is) crucial for the Eastern Christian soteriology; otherwise christology would never be a source of those vehement debates and it would not be dogmatised.

But, because of the excommunication and ostracising of the Nestorians, the spread of the Gospel into Asia and China was hindered and hamstrung for over 1000 years.

Interesting. I always thought that it was quite the opposite: it's because they were excommunicated and persecuted in the Empire they had to move East and therefore spread Christianity among Asian tribes. Otherwise Nestorians would take over Byzantine, Northern Africa and if they were lucky even the West so they would just replace orthodox Christianity and would not have a reason to go to Mongols and to China, would they?

hivizman

Slav wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

But, because of the excommunication and ostracising of the Nestorians, the spread of the Gospel into Asia and China was hindered and hamstrung for over 1000 years.

Interesting. I always thought that it was quite the opposite: it's because they were excommunicated and persecuted in the Empire they had to move East and therefore spread Christianity among Asian tribes. Otherwise Nestorians would take over Byzantine, Northern Africa and if they were lucky even the West so they would just replace orthodox Christianity and would not have a reason to go to Mongols and to China, would they?

That's what I thought as well - in particular, many Nestorians settled in the Persian Empire, carrying with them knowledge of Classical Greek mathematics, science and philosophy, and this knowledge was to form the basis of the "Islamic scientific revolution" of the 9th-11th centuries. The doctrines of Nestorianism find echoes in Islam's view of why Jesus Christ could not be divine ("how can God need to eat and sleep; how can God suffer on the cross; how can it be consistent with God's majesty to die a loathsome death; how can a human be the 'mother of God'?" and so on), which still influences modern Muslim apologetics. However, I think I'm right in saying that the Nestorians were trinitarians, and so perhaps after this detour down the road of heresy we can get firmly back on topic.

hivizman

I came across a speech by Archbishop Rowan Williams, delivered at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo on 11 September 2004, in which he concisely sets out his conception of the Trinity:

[T]he name 'God' is not the name of a person like a human person, a limited being with a father and mother and a place that they inhabit within the world. 'God' is the name of a kind of life - eternal and self-sufficient life, always active, needing nothing. And that life is lived eternally in three ways which are made known to us in the history of God's revelation to the Hebrew people and in the life of Jesus. There is a source of life, an expression of life and a sharing of life. In human language we say, 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit', but we do not mean one God with two beings alongside him, or three gods of limited power. Just as we say, 'Here is my hand, and these are the actions my one hand performs', but it is not different from the actions of my five fingers, so with God: this is God, the One, the Living and Self-subsistent, but what God does is not different from the life which is eternally at the same time a source and an expression and a sharing of life. Since God's life is always an intelligent and purposeful life, each of these dimensions of divine life can be thought of as a centre of mind and love; but this does not mean that God 'contains' three different individuals, separate from each other as human individuals are.

And Christians believe that this life enters into ours in a limited degree. When God takes away our evildoing and our guilt, when he forgives us and sets us free, he breathes new life into us, as he breathed life into Adam at the first. That breathing into us we call the 'Spirit'. As we become mature in our new life, we become more and more like the expression of divine life, the Word whom we encounter in Jesus. Because Jesus prayed to the source of his life as 'Father', we call the eternal expression of God's life the 'Son'. And so too we pray to the source of divine life in the way that Jesus taught us, and we say 'Father' to this divine reality.

But in no way does the true Christian say that the life and action of God could be divided into separate parts, as if it were a material being. In no way does the true Christian say that there is more than one God or that God needs some other in order to act or that God promotes some other being to share his glory. There is one divine action, one divine will; yet (like the fingers of the hand) there are three ways in which that life is real, and it is only in those three ways that the divine life is real - as source and expression and sharing. It is because of those three ways in which divine life exists that Christians speak as they do about what it means to grow in holiness.

And the Christian also says something which may again be a source of disagreement. God is a loving God, as we all agree; but, says the Christian, God does not love simply because he decides to love. He is always, eternally, loving. His very nature, his definition is love. And the interaction and relation between the three ways in which God lives, the source and the expression and the sharing, is eternally the way that God exists. The three centres of divine action, which we call Father, Son and Spirit, pour out the divine life to each other for all eternity, a sort of perfect circle of giving and receiving. And the only word we can use for that relationship of pouring out and giving is love. So as we grow in holiness, we become closer and closer in our actions and thoughts to the complete self-giving that always exists perfectly in God's life. Towards this fullness we are all called to travel and grow.

This comes from an address with the title Christians and Muslims before the One God, and is reproduced in Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Vol. 16, No. 2, April 2005 (pp. 187-197).

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

Frank Sheed explains the Trinity very well in his book "Theology for Beginners". He says that the Father is the "origin" of the Trinity because the Father projects a perfect image of Himself and this perfect image is actually another person because it's so perfect. The Son is the Father's perfect idea of Himself or to put it another way the Son is a mirrow image of the Father.

The Holy Spirit is the result of the perfect bond between Father and Son. The Father is the perfect giver and the Son is the perfect receiver. But check Sheed. He explains it far better than I ever could!

This view on Trinity goes back to St Augustine and Aquinas. Also it's absolutely not acceptable for Orthodox Christians. At very least it would mean that Holy Spirit just does not exists at all.

kelly1

Slav wrote: »

This view on Trinity goes back to St Augustine and Aquinas. Also it's absolutely not acceptable for Orthodox Christians. At very least it would mean that Holy Spirit just does not exists at all.

Slav, the Nicene creed says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Would you claim that the Holy Spirit has independent existence?

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Slav, the Nicene creed says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Would you claim that the Holy Spirit has independent existence?

Noel, it would be good to know what you mean by 'independent existence'. Would you say that God the Father has independent existence?

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Noel, it would be good to know what you mean by 'independent existence'.

I mean existence that does not depend on the Father and/or Son.

Would you say that God the Father has independent existence?

I think so, yes. My understanding is that the Father is the ultimate source of the Son and Spirit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

Slav, the Nicene creed says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Actually, it does not; it says that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but it's a slightly different issue.

kelly1 wrote: »

Would you claim that the Holy Spirit has independent existence?

We describe Trinity as inseparable and indivisible so we cannot say Spirit existence is independent from Father's and Son's. Same as Son's existence is not independent of Father's and Spirit's. Same as Father's existence is not independent of Son's and Spirit's.

kelly1 wrote: »

Would you say that God the Father has independent existence?

I think so, yes. My understanding is that the Father is the ultimate source of the Son and Spirit.

If Father is the source, does it automatically make his existence independent? That would sound a bit like polytheism to me...

kelly1 wrote: »

My understanding is that the Father is the ultimate source of the Son and Spirit.

BTW, glad you have discarded filioque after all!

kelly1

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Trinity remained intact because remember that Jesus is fully divine and fully human. When Jesus died on the cross, His human soul left His body and went to Sheoul according to Scripture. During this time, Jesus' divine spirit was unaffected.

So Jesus has a human body, a human soul and a divine spirit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kelly1

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Other than His soul being without a body, I would say His soul and divine Spirit were unaffected.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kelly1

Slav wrote: »

Actually, it does not; it says that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but it's a slightly different issue.

I stand corrected, thanks for that. Apparently the Filioque dates from the 6th century.

Slav wrote: »

We describe Trinity as inseparable and indivisible so we cannot say Spirit existence is independent from Father's and Son's. Same as Son's existence is not independent of Father's and Spirit's. Same as Father's existence is not independent of Son's and Spirit's.

Agreed. So where did I go wrong in the (poor) explanation of the Trinity?

Slav wrote: »

If Father is the source, does it automatically make his existence independent? That would sound a bit like polytheism to me...

The
Father doesn't proceed from either the Son or the Spirit so I would say the Father is somehow independent of the Son and Spirit. The same can't be said of the Son and Spirit. But just to be clear, I'm not saying that the Father is superior to the Son and Spirit.

Slav wrote: »

BTW, glad you have discarded filioque after all!

No, I haven't. I believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son according to the Filioque.

kelly1

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a long out of body experience! Can you imagine anyone surviving scourging, beatings, crucifixion and being lanced in the heart with a spear?? He was dead alright.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hardly, since Christians believe the same about the soul and spirit of any other dead person. So Jesus was dead in the same way as anyone else who dies.

Zombrex

I always found the trinity one of the more workable Christian ideas. Not sure how apt this analogy is but I always thought about the Trinity as the Eath's ocean(s).

If you want to you can think about all of the Earth's oceans as a single entity. Or you can think of them as individual entities (the Atlantic) and talk of them in that way (there is a storm over the Atlantic means there is a storm over the Atlantic ocean but it is also over ocean as a whole)

To say that there are 7 oceans on Earth does not stop you saying there is 1 ocean on Earth, it simply depends on the context you are talking about them. You can say that the Atlantic can't be the Pacific but both can be the Earth's ocean.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

I mean existence that does not depend on the Father and/or Son.


I think so, yes. My understanding is that the Father is the ultimate source of the Son and Spirit.

This is why I stated earlier in the thread that I think we are better accepting the broad concept of the Trinity rather than trying to be too dogmatic about the intricacies of it.

If the Father does not depend on the Spirit or the Son, and yet if the Son and the Spirit depend on the Father, then I find it very hard to see how all three Persons can be said to be co-equal in power and glory. It would seem to me that the implication is that the Son and the Spirit, in such a scheme of things, are subordinate to the Father - and that in itself is anti-Trinitarian.

This problem, I believe, has come about through the Greek term monogenes being mistranslated into Latin (by the likes of Jerome) as begotten (unigenitus) rather than unique (unicus). Therefore theologians have contorted themselves trying to speculate how God the Son could be 'eternally begotten' (and excommunicating those who couldn't accept their contortions) instead of understanding that the Greek text actually said that God the son was 'eternally unique' in His relationship to Gods the Father. In other words, the term translated 'begotten' refers to uniqueness - not procession.

Remember that Augustine, for example, was notoriously bad at the Greek language - so he was expressing his theology in Latin, where words have a much narrower meaning than in Greek.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

This is why I stated earlier in the thread that I think we are better accepting the broad concept of the Trinity rather than trying to be too dogmatic about the intricacies of it.

If the Father does not depend on the Spirit or the Son, and yet if the Son and the Spirit depend on the Father, then I find it very hard to see how all three Persons can be said to be co-equal in power and glory. It would seem to me that the implication is that the Son and the Spirit, in such a scheme of things, are subordinate to the Father - and that in itself is anti-Trinitarian.

This problem, I believe, has come about through the Greek term monogenes being mistranslated into Latin (by the likes of Jerome) as begotten (unigenitus) rather than unique (unicus). Therefore theologians have contorted themselves trying to speculate how God the Son could be 'eternally begotten' (and excommunicating those who couldn't accept their contortions) instead of understanding that the Greek text actually said that God the son was 'eternally unique' in His relationship to Gods the Father. In other words, the term translated 'begotten' refers to uniqueness - not procession.

Remember that Augustine, for example, was notoriously bad at the Greek language - so he was expressing his theology in Latin, where words have a much narrower meaning than in Greek.

Then why is the term 'Son' used? Earlier you said in response to my question about if The Son only became The Son at the incarnation, before hand being The Word:

'Actually it's usually seen as being the other way round. The second Person of the Trinity is, according to the Nicene Creed, considered to be the "eternally begotten Son" of God the Father. So He was always God the Son, even before the incarnation.

However, He only became 'Jesus' when He was conceived in the womb of Mary and took on human nature.'

Its odd to use the term 'Son' and 'Father' if both are eternal no? Of course, if he wasn't always the son, but only became the son after the incarnation, then thats fine. However, if you hold to the 'always, eternally the son' then it throws up issue with the language IMO.
BTW, does Jesus always being 'The Son' rather than eternally being 'The Word' then becoming 'The Son' at the incarnation have any bearing on the trinity?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Then why is the term 'Son' used?

Always wondered that myself. What is the original word that the translation come from. Does it mean "son" as we understand it (ie the male offspring?) or is it a more general term that just finds English translation as "son", but could mean things like protagee or something like that

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Then why is the term 'Son' used? Earlier you said in response to my question about if The Son only became The Son at the incarnation, before hand being The Word:

'Actually it's usually seen as being the other way round. The second Person of the Trinity is, according to the Nicene Creed, considered to be the "eternally begotten Son" of God the Father. So He was always God the Son, even before the incarnation.

However, He only became 'Jesus' when He was conceived in the womb of Mary and took on human nature.'

Its odd to use the term 'Son' and 'Father' if both are eternal no? Of course, if he wasn't always the son, but only became the son after the incarnation, then thats fine. However, if you hold to the 'always, eternally the son' then it throws up issue with the language IMO.
BTW, does Jesus always being 'The Son' rather than eternally being 'The Word' then becoming 'The Son' at the incarnation have any bearing on the trinity?

Actually I think it's God's eternity that is the key to understanding Christ's Sonship. We get ourselves mixed up when we start thinking about God being 'before' or 'after'. The Second Person of the Trinity is the Son on the basis of His mission to come and save humanity - and since He is eternal and outside of time then He is eternally the Son. For example, He is described in Revelation as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).

The reason why we don't refer to Him as being 'Jesus' eternally, I think, is because 'Jesus' relates to His relationship to men (temporal) whereas 'Son' relates to His relationship to God (eternal).

Thinking about the Trinity late at night makes my head hurt!

postcynical

Wicknight wrote: »

I always found the trinity one of the more workable Christian ideas. Not sure how apt this analogy is but I always thought about the Trinity as the Eath's ocean(s).

If you want to you can think about all of the Earth's oceans as a single entity. Or you can think of them as individual entities (the Atlantic) and talk of them in that way (there is a storm over the Atlantic means there is a storm over the Atlantic ocean but it is also over ocean as a whole)

To say that there are 7 oceans on Earth does not stop you saying there is 1 ocean on Earth, it simply depends on the context you are talking about them. You can say that the Atlantic can't be the Pacific but both can be the Earth's ocean.

I like it. Would this analogy from physics be appropriate? Light has at least two distinct natures, a wave-like nature and a particle-like nature. It's always the one light (or radiation) but it's helpful for us to see it as one or the other phenomenon depending on the situation. We don't fully understand light but we can relate separate aspects of light's behaviour to concepts with which we are familiar.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

The Second Person of the Trinity is the Son on the basis of His mission to come and save humanity

This is what I'm getting at with the term 'son'.

- and since He is eternal and outside of time then He is eternally the Son.

For example, He is described in Revelation as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).

This raises another question, 'from the founding of the world', and also 'In the beginning the word was' are interesting. For we are not dealing with the 'eternal' nature. We are dealing with creation. A beginning. It says that he was there before 'the world' was. There is no 'beginning' for an eternal being though, so its only going back so far. The best one can summise is that he was is the Son since the beginning of time, which was created. Though, I would not use the term 'eternally the son' anyway. If 'the Son' described his mission on earth, then he was 'destined' to be the son since the beginning, but did not become the son until the incarnation. When we are dealing with an eternal being, 'Son' is not a language that makes sense IMO.

The reason why we don't refer to Him as being 'Jesus' eternally, I think, is because 'Jesus' relates to His relationship to men (temporal) whereas 'Son' relates to His relationship to God (eternal).

I understand why we don't refer to Jesus as eternal. As i said earlier though, if he is /was eternally 'the Son', its quite strange language to use. A son needs a father, but a father does not need a son etc. Again though, does it impact on the trinity, if The Word, did not become 'the Son' until the incarnation? Just curious.

Thinking about the Trinity late at night makes my head hurt!

Thinking about the Trinity full stop makes my head hurt! One of the issues of the doctrine of the trinity IMO, is that people can think it is 'the' explaination. Dr. Michael Brown describes the triune nature of God as 'complex unity', which I think is much better. Semantics I know, but it describes what we don't know as well as what we do, so its a more appropriate term IMO.