Is the traditional concept of the Trinity false?

[Ms Lala]

Hey all!
Just thought I"d pose something provacative today. Lately I have been studying alot of concepts that I have been traditionally taught and just kind of accepted as doctrine without really studying for myself. Right now I am researching the Trinity. I am really looking at Oneness theology right now which states that God is one with 3 manifestations
quoteT. D. Jakes (Potters House Church, Dallas, TX).

...we have one God, but He is Father in creation Son in redemption and Holy Spirit in regeneration (taped excerpt from an interview with Jakes, available- Living By the Word Ministries

This is opposed to One God in 3 distinct persons which is the traditional Trinitarian view. Both views accept the diety of Christ, that He died, rose and is Saviour.

The first thought that comes to my mind is when Christ states that I and the Father are one.

Any opinions out there. I plan to post with scripture as I study. I am not declaring which (Trinitarian or Oneness) is right and wrong, I am just interested in hearing the thoughts of others. Please post your opinions and scripture references if you have them.

 

[1god1]

Lala...I am impressed with your desire to study!! In response to your post, I guess I am sort of prejudicial...reason.. I am Apostolic/pentecostal. We believe in one God..manifested for reasons you stated in your post. Some pentecostal churches are Trinitarian and some believe in one God, which is why I usually say Apostolic. On some boards I go to, this is a HOT topic. The moderators usually end up shutting down the post. Anyway...my thoughts...The Bible doesn't say anything about three separate persons...You can also read John 1;1 where it talks about God being the Word and the Word made flesh. This difference in belief in churches sometimes determines how they baptize. We baptize according to Acts2:38...in Jesus' Name...Some Trinitarians Baptize according to Matt 28 and say "In the name of the Father, Son & HolyGost". When I read Matt 28, I don't see three titles...I see "the name"...Acts 2:38 tells what the NAME is...but this subject is something I also intend to study more about...I have to know for myself....like you. Most peoople I encounter believe in Three Gods...or One God made up of three persons. May God bless you in your studies...with your hunger from knowledge/truth...He will definitely quench your thirst...........

 

[Nice & Wavy]

Hey lala....try praying, reading and doing a study on the following scripture:

I John 5:7 - 9

In the Kings James version it reads this way:

"...for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

and vs 8 "...And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water and the blood: and these three agree in one."


Verse 9 says "...If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which He hath testified in His Son."

Let me know how your study goes...I'm interested to see what you come up with.

Blessings...

 

[Ms Lala]

Thank you all. I'm going to look up the scriptures you all suggested. I am probably going to be studying this for a while. It's like something in my spirit would always get uncomfortable when people would use the term "persons" but I was never sure why. Now I"m going to really study this out because I have heard some people going too far. I heard one minister say that Jesus knows who people are as sinners(before being saved) but that God the father doesn't know who they are. How would Jesus have knowledge that the Father doesn't, He is not divided amongst Himself.

 

[Nice & Wavy]

Thank you all. I'm going to look up these scriptures. I really got interested in studying this after gaining an understanding of the Jewish view of monotheism and I don't see how scriptures some have used in the old testament fully support the idea of seperate persons and I definitely know I"m not worshipping 3 Gods. I am probably going to be studying this for a while. It's like something in my spirit would always get uncomfortable when people would use the term "persons" but I was never sure why. Now I"m going to really study this out because I have heard some people going to far. I heard one minister say that Jesus knows who we are as sinners(before being saved) but that God doesn't know who they are. How would Jesus have knowledge that the Father doesn't, He is not divided amongst Himself.

That's right and Jesus said..."I and my Father are One and the same."

Example: I am a wife, mother and an employee. My duties as a wife, differ than my duties as a mother, and so on. Even though I have different functions, I'm still the same person, just doing things differently at different times.

Sometimes we can hear different people (ministers and others outside the church) say things and our spirit is quickened. That's because the Holy Spirit is our teacher. If you feel that something isn't right, He (the Holy Spirit) is revealing to you to take the time and find out about it because ..."Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..." I John 4:1

 

[Sweet C]

Oneness Theology is a revival of modalism taught by Sabellius (which I won't get into deep explanation of the history here), but modalism teaches that God manifested himself at different modes (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) at different times, thus the quote from Jakes ...we have one God, but He is Father in creation Son in redemption and Holy Spirit in regeneration. The UPCI's website (http://www.upci.org/about.asp) shows this statement as well.

The problem with this explanation is that limits the Godhead to being only one at a time (sequential modalism). This is highly problematic since throughout scripture, you see God represented as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times in the scripture. One good example of this is in the creation. The statement above ascribes creation to the Father, but in Gen 1:2, we see that the Spirit of God moves upon the face of the deep, and as such shows that the Holy Spirit had a part in creation.

Now some Oneness who are familiar with doctrine will say that they believe in simultaneous modalism (though Jakes' statement is exactly what early modalism taught which is sequential, it is highly likely that if he is truely Oneness, which is still up for debate since he has never personally said that, he ascribes to simultaneous modalism, since most Oneness do). Simultaneous modalism says that the different modes can operate at the same time. The main issue with simultaneous modalism is that if they are all only one person, then why is the Godhead biblically described as more than one person? One example of this is in creation, Genesis 1:26 where God the Father says let us make man in our own image according to our likeness and then later after the fall of Adam and Eve, God the Father states in Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil.

 

[Ms Lala]

Sweet C you raised some very good points that I am really going to have to meditate on. I didn't even think about it in terms of actually limiting God in terms of expressing different modes at one time. I didn't know that they believed this. I still really need to gain clarity on the use of word persons and each person operating on there own. But I see your point Sweet C like when Christ prayed to the Father. God would have to have been operating in more than one mode.

 

[kbragg]

Sweet C you raised some very good points that I am really going to have to meditate on. I didn't even think about it in terms of actually limiting God in terms of expressing different modes at one time. I didn't know that they believed this. I still really need to gain clarity on the use of word persons and each person operating on there own. But I see your point Sweet C like when Christ prayed to the Father. God would have to have been operating in more than one mode.

Exactly! Another example is when Jesus was Baptised. Jesus was baptised, the Holy Spirit decended upon Him, and God said "This is my son in whom I am well pleased."

Matthew 3:13-16

13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus didn't decend upon Himself and then throw His voice and talk to/about Himself. All one God, but 3 distinct persons as we see here. God does not have a multiple personality disorder. He is 3 distinct persons in one.

A good example of this is an egg. You have the shell, the white, and the yoke. 3 Distinct parts, but yet all one egg. Water is another. Always H2O, yet it can be a solid (ice) liquid (water) and a gas (steam). As a matter of fact, all throughout nature you see the Trinity! I do believe God did that on purpose! (kind of like having several galaxies spinning backwards, just to stump the evolutionists! He does have a sense of humor! )

 

[melodee]

Oneness Theology is a revival of modalism taught by Sabellius (which I won't get into deep explanation of the history here), but modalism teaches that God manifested himself at different modes (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) at different times, thus the quote from Jakes ...we have one God, but He is Father in creation Son in redemption and Holy Spirit in regeneration. The UPCI's website (http://www.upci.org/about.asp) shows this statement as well.

The problem with this explanation is that limits the Godhead to being only one at a time (sequential modalism). This is highly problematic since throughout scripture, you see God represented as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times in the scripture. One good example of this is in the creation. The statement above ascribes creation to the Father, but in Gen 1:2, we see that the Spirit of God moves upon the face of the deep, and as such shows that the Holy Spirit had a part in creation.

Now some Oneness who are familiar with doctrine will say that they believe in simultaneous modalism (though Jakes' statement is exactly what early modalism taught which is sequential, it is highly likely that if he is truely Oneness, which is still up for debate since he has never personally said that, he ascribes to simultaneous modalism, since most Oneness do). Simultaneous modalism says that the different modes can operate at the same time. The main issue with simultaneous modalism is that if they are all only one person, then why is the Godhead biblically described as more than one person? One example of this is in creation, Genesis 1:26 where God the Father says let us make man in our own image according to our likeness and then later after the fall of Adam and Eve, God the Father states in Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil.

SweetC, you said what I was think as I read this, very eloquently no doubt.

We understand that the Prince of the Air/Darkness cannot be omnipresent, although he has many evil spirits as allies. But God is omnipotent and omnipresent, and His power allows Him to be three beings while still being part of a whole, perfect Supreme Being. (ex. God in heaven while Jesus was dying on calvary) Just how he accomplishes this is really beyond the comprehension of the human brain. It reminds me of when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus and said " If I speak to you of earthly things and you do not understand, how then can I speak to you about heavenly things?".

Also in John Ch.1, The "Word", which denotes Jesus, is descrbied to be God AND with God.

Ms Lala, Happy studying, girl!!

 

[Ms Lala]

Thank you kbragg and melodee for your comments and help. I am so glad that we can discuss things without it going sour. I have heard people get really upset about this which is why I am always hesitant to bring it up.

 

[Cichelle]

The main issue with simultaneous modalism is that if they are all only one person, then why is the Godhead biblically described as more than one person? One example of this is in creation, Genesis 1:26 where God the Father says let us make man in our own image according to our likeness and then later after the fall of Adam and Eve, God the Father states in Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil.

To offer another perspective, G-d is not described as more than one person in the Torah. Below is one rabbi's take on this subject, which I have truncated and bolded the most pertinent parts. For the full text and footnotes, please send me a pm.

Let’s examine Genesis 1:26.

And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and they shall rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

...a great number of Trinitarian Christian scholars have long abandoned the notion that Genesis 1:26 implies a plurality of persons in the godhead. Rather, Christian scholars overwhelmingly agree that the plural pronoun in this verse is a reference to God’s ministering angels who were created previously, and the Almighty spoke majestically in the plural, consulting His heavenly court. Let’s read the comments of a number of preeminent Trinitarian Bible scholars on this subject. For example, the evangelical Christian author Gordon J. Wenham, who is no foe of the Trinity and authored a widely respected two-volume commentary on the Book of Genesis, writes on this verse,

Christians have traditionally seen [Genesis 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.1

...the NIV Study Bible also writes in its commentary on Genesis 1:26,

Us . . . Our . . . Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court. (see 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:1 2

Charles Caldwell Ryrie, a highly regarded dispensationalist professor of Biblical Studies at the Philadelphia College of Bible and author of the widely read Bible commentary, The Ryrie Study Bible, writes in his short and to-the-point annotation on Genesis 1:26,

Us . . . Our. Plurals of majesty.3

The Liberty Annotated Study Bible, a Bible commentary published by the Reverend Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, similarly remarks on this verse,

The plural pronoun “Us” is most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.4

The 10-volume commentary by Keil and Delitzsch is considered by many to be the most influential exposition on the “Old Testament” in evangelical circles. Yet in its commentary on Genesis 1:26, we find,

The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity; modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis . . . No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis . . . .5

The question that immediately comes to mind is: What would compel these evangelical scholars -- all of whom are Trinitarian -- to determinedly conclude that Genesis 1:26 does not suggest the Trinity, but rather a majestic address to the angelic hosts of heaven? Why would the comments of the above conservative Christian writers so perfectly harmonize with the Jewish teaching on this verse?

The answer to this question is simple. If you search the Bible you will find that when the Almighty speaks of “us” or “our,” He is addressing His ministering angels. In fact, only two chapters later, God continues to use the pronoun “us” as He speaks with His angels. At the end of the third chapter of Genesis the Almighty relates to His angels that Adam and his wife have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and must therefore be prevented from eating from the Tree of Life as well; for if man would gain access to the Tree of Life he will “become like one of us.” The Creator then instructs his angels known as Cherubim to stand at the gate of the Garden of Eden waving a flaming sword so that mankind is prevented from entering the Garden and eating from the Tree of Life. Let’s examine Genesis 3:22-24.

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” -- therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

This use of the majestic plural in Genesis 3:22-24 is what is intended by the NIV Study Bible’s annotation on Genesis 1:26 (above). At the end of its comment on this verse, the NIV Study Bible provides a number of Bible sources from the Jewish scriptures to support its position that “God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court.” The verses cited are: Genesis 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, I Kings 22:19-23, Job 15:8, and Jeremiah 23:18. These verses convey to the attentive Bible reader that the heavenly abode of the Creator is filled with the ministering angels who attend the Almighty and to whom He repeatedly refers when using the plural pronoun “Us.”6

Now, this is obviously not speaking to whether or not a particular concept of the Trinity is supported in the Christian Gospels, which presumably would be of more interest to people on this forum. I am simply offering a different perspective/interpretation on the particular Torah verses mentioned. There are other views within Judaism, as well, some of which involve knowledge of the Hebrew language.

I have heard so many conflicting ideas about the Trinity from Christian friends and colleagues that I am more confused than able to have a dialogue or debate about it, so believe me that is not my purpose. I suppose, in the end, we must follow what we think is right or where we believe we are lead. Blessings in your studies, Ms. Lala.