In Wednesday’s Link List there was a form at the end which gave people the opportunity to leave a message for my eyes only, without it appearing as a public comment. I want to thank those of you who used this feature, and those who are still using it even today.
One of the comments was from a longtime reader who raised an issue that I want to bring forward here, not to be divisive, but because it is something that can always use discussion. While it affects all of us, it involves a very small, but still significant number of people who belong to one or two denominations; including some who read this blog, and I hope that any comments will be made in the spirit of Christian love.
Here was the comment:
If the Trinity is such an important tenet of Christian belief (the Apostle’s Creed), why do we venerate singers like Phillips, Craig & Dean and preachers like T. D. Jakes who are non-trinitarian as though they are “one of us”? If a singer or preacher didn’t believe that Jesus was truly God and man would we welcome him/her the same way? What if they didn’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Every time I hear a Phillips, Craig & Dean song on Christian radio it makes me squirm. Am I being judgmental?
Yes, you are being judgmental.
The next question was… okay, just kidding; let’s look at this issue.
Again, this is not to debate the particular doctrine. I’ve heard some of the arguments and yes, I know that the word “trinity” does not appear in the Bible, but for most of us, our “statement of faith” — either our personal one or the one for the faith family to which we belong — is the reduction to seven or eight (or twelve) sentences concerning the things we consider to be core beliefs. These are the things that people would consider non-negotiables.
It’s about the importance we place on doctrine.
Here are four of the seven statements in the National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith which specifically refer to God, Jesus and Holy Spirit, of which the first is primary for this discussion:
- We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
- We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
- We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
- We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
(For my Canadian readers, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Statement of Faith is identical.)
These summary statements are based on something similar that we refer to as creeds.
The Apostles Creed, originally written in Latin but translated into modern English, says in part,
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit……He ascended into heaven,
He is seated at the right hand of the Father…I believe in the Holy Spirit…
These statements are intact in all of the creed’s denominational variants.
The Nicene Creed is similar, and just in case those two are insufficient, the Athanasian Creed, which reads as though it was written by a Philadelphia lawyer, goes to even greater lengths to try to spell out the mystery of what the hymn-writer termed “God in three persons, blessed Trinity.” (While waiting for Athanasian Creed readers to return, we’ll put some music on hold in here…)
So we agree. At least most of us. We don’t understand it fully. We have a number of weak analogies to try to explain it to Sunday School and VBS pupils, but when we worship on the weekends, our services speak of God, speak of Jesus and speak of The Holy Spirit.
So the question my reader is asking is simply, ‘Are people who reject the trinitarian doctrinal view truly one of us?’
Personally, I think there is one, and only one way to answer that. If we value the creeds and what they say then either those who believe differently cannot be included among those we call “Christian” or the creeds have to go. I say that simply because the creeds don’t relegate this to the realm of secondary issues or tertiary issues. The creeds make the trinity a primary issue.
This isn’t about modes of baptism; it’s not concerned with the appropriate musical style for weekend worship; it’s not discussion about whether women should wear hats in church; it’s not interested in seven-day creation versus theistic evolution; and, believe it or not, it’s not about any of the 57 varieties of debate over homosexuality.
It’s more important than all that.
Still, there are those who feel that this is all semantics; that the case against Jakes is overstated and that he is just expressing his understanding of God in different words. Here’s an excerpt from an online discernment ministry article:
When being interviewed on the radio Jakes in responding to the questioner on the orthodox view of the trinity said “The Trinity, the term Trinity, is not a biblical term, to begin with. It’s a theological description for something that is so beyond human comprehension that I’m not sure that we can totally hold God to a numerical system. The Lord said, “Behold, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one, and beside Him there is no other.” When God got ready to make a man that looked like Him, He didn’t make three. He made one man. However, that one man had three parts. He was body, soul and spirit. We have one God, but He is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration. It’s very important that we understand that, but I think that the first thing that every believer needs to do is to approach God by faith, and then having approached Him by faith, then they need to sit up under good teaching so that they can begin to understand who the God is that they have believed upon.” (“Living by the Word” on KKLA, hosted by John Coleman, Aug. 23, 1998) …continue here…
What you’re seeing take shape here is a doctrine known as ‘modalism.’ Another online apologetics ministry, CARM, identifies this more clearly:
At the Potter House’s website, under their statement of faith regarding God, they state, “There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” The keywords here are “three manifestations.” If Jakes believed in the Trinity he should use words like “simultaneous,” “coeternal,” or “coequal” when referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’s relationship to one another. T.D. Jakes’s view on the nature of God is known as modalism. Modalism is a heresy that teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do not simultaneously exist as distinct persons… …read the whole article here…
(A much more exhaustive article on this subject appears at The Forgotten Word.)
So to restate my reader’s comment another way, ‘Is all this a dealbreaker?’
If it’s a dealbreaker with Jakes, to be consistent, you have to apply the same standard to contemporary Christian musicians Phillips, Craig and Dean. But here it gets trickier, since CCM tends to break down denominational walls to the point where PC&D have appeared at the very theologically conservative Moody Church in Chicago and at Promise Keepers rallies.
But the three not only attend church at one of the largest “oneness” denominations, the UPC or United Pentecostal Church; they are — all three of them — on pastoral staff:
Randy Phillips serves as Pastor at his home church in Austin, Texas. Randy’s responsibilities include preaching, counseling, leading worship…
For more than 18 years, Shawn [Craig] has served as Music Pastor at his home church in St. Louis, MO. There he leads music, worship, and the New Members Disciple class.
Dan [Dean] is the Senior Pastor at his home church in Irving. TX. There Dan’s responsibilities include preaching, casting the vision for the church, oversight of day to day operations, and hiring and placement of all staff members.
The above is from a very exhaustive article on this subject at Dr. James White’s website, written by Erik Nielsen. (Even if you’ve never heard of PC&D, this is a great introduction to UPC beliefs for those unfamiliar. They 
go so far as to say that if you were baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit,” that was ineffective.) On the other hand, the article concludes with a letter from PC&D in which they affirm the very Apostles Creed with which we began this discussion. Can both positions be true at the same time?
There are many other webpages as well, typing “Phillips Craig Dean trinity” into Google came up as an auto-complete with about 76,000 pages dedicated to this discussion. Even the Wikipedia article on the band has a subheading for “theological criticism” including the quotation: “[w]e believe in one God who is eternal in His existence, Triune in His manifestation…” with manifestation again being the key word here. At a Baptist discussion board, there is the suggestion that the band recorded “You Are God Alone” as a specific denial of the trinity.
Again, I’m not interested in attacking PC&D here. Kelly Powers, writing at The Berean Perspective Online, has correspondence from the band’s handlers saying that they avoid discussion like this because they don’t want to be divisive. But she notes — correctly, I believe — that “the gospel divides folks plain and simple. If they truly were following what the Word teaches they would not be so worried about offending people for the cause of truth.”
The situation with Phillips Craig and Dean is more complicated than that of Jakes. With Jakes, Christian bookstores, which serve as the frontline or “gatekeepers” of what Christian people read can simply not carry his books. And by extension, those same stores (or online equivalents) can not carry PC&D CDs. But with PC&D, you’re introduced to another very influencial party: Christian radio. Combine the airwave-friendly sound the band has with the willingness of many program directors to play anything that fits that format, the endorsement of the record label (EMI Christian Group), and the band’s propensity to record cover tunes by other Christian songwriters, and the issues get very, very fuzzy.
I know from past experience that this blog post is going to attract the usual comments from people in the UPC denomination and similar churches. I take it as a given that such people most certainly consider themselves Christians and don’t consider modalism a dealbreaker.
It’s everyone else I want to hear from.
Related posts on this blog:
April 2008 — God in Three Persons — What if instead of trying to explain the “three persons” of the Trinity, we looked at one pair and then the other?
June 2009 — Trinity — Some of the “trinitarian” verses including a few that are problematic for those believing in modalism.
Very “well done”, my friend! Glad you used this “medium” to tackle a touchy subject. It’s “rare” that we read as well-researched an article as yours in the blogosphere.
Enough of the “steak” terms. Keep writing, Paul. You do it well!
David
Comment by David Fisher — February 4, 2011 @ 8:43 am
Thank you for your thorough and thought-provoking article. I believe in the trinity, and that it is a key doctrine of Christianty, but your comments on the “Oneness” groups has helped me see the bigger picture. The further works you refer to will be a help to me. Many thanks for the time and effort you have invested to present this material in such a plain and readable way.
Comment by Lin Pearson — February 4, 2011 @ 2:38 pm
[...] I list these here today because I’ve just spent a record two hours preparing tomorrow’s blog post at Thinking Out Loud, where we look at the question, “Do doctrines like ‘trinity’ really matter?” In other words, dealing with people — some of them high profile Christian ministers and musicians — who don’t share the view of “God in three persons” normally expressed in Catholic, mainline Protestant, Orthodox, Evangelical and Charismatic Christianity. If you want to read that article, link here. [...]
Pingback by The Trinity Collection « Christianity 201 — February 4, 2011 @ 6:13 pm
[...] ministers and musicians who don’t subscribe to key doctrines, and as to the question of whether or not they can be considered “Christian” in the sense the rest of us use that word. Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than [...]
Pingback by Salad Bar Theology « Christianity 201 — February 4, 2011 @ 6:50 pm
i find it rather perturbing your narrow minded views on The Godhead. Accordingly, you miss many people who believe the same as above:
Perry Noble, Judah Smith, Francis Chan.
Interesting how you try to use your blog as a way to take aim at others. What a shame and very anti-christian as you openly judge to appeal to more readers
Comment by travworthington — February 5, 2011 @ 3:03 pm
You have utterly, totally, completely missed the point of this whole exercise.
The question that is being asked here — as stated so very clearly in the post title — is this: Is there a point at which departure from one of the seven or eight core doctrinal statements of Christianity constitutes departure from Christianity as a whole? Can I differ on a doctrine that everyone else would say is one of the “biggies” and continue to use the Christian label to describe myself?
So yes, the blog post is provocative; and yes, this blog has a lot of readers. But the point is to draw readers into the greater questions which again, are stated so clearly throughout the post: (a) Does doctrine matter?, (b) Are some things dealbreakers? or (c) Is there a point at which we cross a line? The point is to get people thinking about their own beliefs.
The great majority of the essay consists in bringing together a number of elements which are already present in so many places online to answer a particular reader’s question.
And that last point is important: I did not seek this topic out, nor did I really have the two hours that it took to assemble some kind of response to something a regular reader considered a vital issue.
I’ve been accused of being “soft” on a number of issues here, but I’ve never been accused of being judgmental.
I’m a huge fan of Perry Noble and Francis Chan. I’ve quoted from them many times on this blog. You claim they are non-trinitarian. That’s a real game-changer for me because I’ve never been a fan of T. D. Jakes anyway, and have no big stake in how that issue resolves; but now, if your information is correct, I would be forced to answer the question for myself as to whether or not it’s a dealbreaker, something that — despite calling me judgmental — you’ll notice I don’t actually do here.
Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — February 5, 2011 @ 4:13 pm
Dude. What a revelation, and here I am a sometime worship music leader! Had no idea. Have sent your article off to my (and other past) pastors for comment & consideration.
I recently had a friend over who sang a ‘theologically safe’ God-song that had been written by a Mormon. At the time, I kinda had to agree that – BY ITSELF – the song posed no problem…sing away, use it at your bible-believing church.
Re Phillips, Craig & Dean, I guess I’d have to play by the same rules: If the song itself is an ‘art-piece’ that you lift to God in YOUR denomination and which, based on its lyrical content, poses no antithetical position to your faith/creeds, sing away.
But the fact that these guys are teachers is certainly disturbing. Sheep seem more stupid than shepherds – it’s as if they have an excuse for being part of something heretical, and according to Scripture, they will not be judged as severely as teachers – whatever that will mean one day, I have no idea.
But everyone’s judgment by Christ is his or her own deal. We can warn people that P,C & D are heretical believers and to not buy their brand of Gospel, but do we boycott their product in the marketplace – do we go that far?
Do I not get a hair-cut from the gay guy who owns the hairdressing salon, because he might use my money to ‘gay it up’ somewhere?
Do I not get my carpet cleaned by the guy I know beats his wife with regularity just in case he buys more booze with my money and which could lead to his wife being wailed-on?
A lot of hard things to make judgments on/about and which would make us Christians look either really committed or really nasty and unforgiving.
“Accept him whose faith is weak,”, Paul said. It doesn’t say, “Accept his weakness”, whatever that weakness happens to be.
I pray that we all take time to weed out in our lives what could be too lenient in our views and too harsh – under the wisdom of the very personal and real member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
Chris B.
Comment by Chris B. — February 5, 2011 @ 4:32 pm
It certainly is a thorny issue. Thanks for a great response.
And I’ll admit it would be easier if it was some other part of the Apostles Creed that was issue. If I were to say, “I don’t really believe Jesus rose from the dead;” or “I don’t believe that Jesus is actually returning;” it would make things somewhat easier to process.
BTW, if you lead worship, don’t sweat this too much; as PC&D doesn’t write everything they record. For example, they helped popularize “Revelation Song,” but the song was already recorded by a couple of different artists before they found it.
And of course a lot depends on your church. A few weeks ago, the morning services at Northpoint (Andy Stanley) began with Hey Jude by the Beatles. (And listening to the sermon that week, I never did quite get the connection!) But in another church, my wife was chastised for doing the arrangement of Jesus Loves Me that borrows the Beatles tunes Twist and Shout. So the spirit of Romans 14, which you quoted, is very much dependent on where you are and who you’re dealing with.
Which actually doesn’t make this topic any clearer, does it?
Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — February 5, 2011 @ 4:48 pm
Wow, I really poked a stick in a hornet’s nest didn’t it!
You certainly are NOT judgmental in anything you write!
Glad the topic got some feedback. Thanks for all the work you put into it.
Are non-trinitarians Christians? Not biblical ones as far as I’m concerned.
Keep writing, dear brother! Will I see you on Wednesday night? I still need to pick up my tickets.
David
Comment by David Fisher — February 5, 2011 @ 8:17 pm
[...] become Pharisaical. I recently read an excellent post from Paul Wilkinson at Thinking Out Loud (http://paulwilkinson.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/why-are-non-trinitarians-included-among-christians/#co…). His focus was very specifically acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity and whether that should [...]
Pingback by Life After Church » Should I stay or should I go? (part 2) — February 11, 2011 @ 9:08 pm
So what was the conclusion? Are Christians only Christians if they ascribe to the Trinity or are their Christians who trust in Jesus but are not Trinitarians? Does one have to be creedal to be saved?
Comment by S Stevens — March 12, 2011 @ 1:41 pm
I think that what’s being said here is that this is one of the “biggie” doctrines. You can have different views on tertiary matters, but on primary doctrines, there is little “wiggle room.”
A person who comes to saving faith in Jesus Christ in an environment where understanding of “God in three persons” is somewhat distorted or lacking, is, in my opinion, like a rocket launched into deep space that is 1-degree off target. For the first phases of the mission it makes little difference, but as the mission progresses, there dawns the realization that the rocket is now thousands of miles off.
In other words, I think that while a person is taking their first steps toward the cross may not have a full understanding of all the nuances of every doctrine; over time, if their God-picture is mixed up, it’s going to cause complications later on.
Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — March 12, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
[...] a bonus article from TOL, written in response to the ongoing controversy concerning the [...]
Pingback by I Believe What I Believe is What Makes Me Who I Am « Christianity 201 — May 30, 2011 @ 6:20 pm
Do the origin study ? Go back even futher than the Roman Catholic Church. Although they were killing up 550 those that didn’t not except their Trinity 3 person in one God Creed.But, the truine worship was going on before this…The scriptures if the Inspired Word of God written through men.Should not be disguarded…If it isn’t in the concordance of the Bible. It should get your attention there is a reason. All books you read or study has a concordance. This list what is in the book as a referal. Not in the concordance not in the book. There was a time the book didn’t even have chapters or numbered verses. Go back today the days of yester year. To the days of the lone ranger. Where did the frist century church go ? And what did they teach ? All of this confusion is of satan. And if you wont to get wrapped up in. So, let it be your choice. My salvation is through Christ, no matter of any of my misunderstanding. He is sufficient to del. me……. Every man or woman is dealt their measure of grace through their FAITH in Christ alone… More religious deterents to take away from Christ the end
Comment by Pastor: K.W.Pledger — August 23, 2011 @ 6:59 pm
I always have trouble getting back into the subject when people respond to blog posts that are more than six months old, but I do want to respond to the comment about concordances. The statement, “Not in the concordance not in the book,” is a little misleading. As this is a subject about which I have some expertise, allow me to remind you that concordances run something like this:
although I’ve left a few out. Concordances are also translation-specific.
Also, I view the doctrine of the trinity as one of seven or eight primary doctrines of the Christian faith, so yes, I do want “to get wrapped up in it;” and I don’t see it as “confusion.”
Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — August 23, 2011 @ 7:10 pm
Is it such a problem to believe God, and not men? He has made no mention of a “triune godhead” anywhere in His Holy Writ. The cogitations of man are vain, but the Word of God is clear. The problem comes with not believing God, and believing men. The power of creedalism to lead and keep the saints in error is obvious to the son of God who has spent time knowing and recognizing his Father. He has spoken plainly, as has His Son. There is one God, and Father of us all, and one Lord, Who is over all. It is only a love of truth that will liberate a soul from bondage to creeds, and begin to rely soley upon the written Word of God.
Comment by Phil Nickel — August 28, 2011 @ 3:00 pm
I disagree. The six or seven “trinitarian scriptures” are clear and fundamental. This isn’t “creedalism,” as you call it, this is basic Christianity. But I’m okay if you want to disagree, in fact let me leave you with a blessing:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:14)
Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — August 28, 2011 @ 3:26 pm
Peculiar that the “six” or “seven” scripture references are not supplied. Not unusual, though. The direct quotation of that which God has declared will eliminate any doubt. At least it should, excepting in cases of a mind not centered on Christ and His truth. Mal 2:10 Mk 12:32 Ro 3:30 1C 8:6 Eph 4:6 1Ti 2:5 Ja 2:19
It would serve the honest soul best if these passages were humbly meditated upon and divine illumination sought, especially those passages which are from the Apostle Paul, whom God chose for us, the Gentile nations, to imitate and follow, as he followed Christ. 1C 4:16, 11:1. Unless, of course, Paul was not who he said he was.
Ro 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
It will be found, should you supply those “six” or “seven” trinitarian scriptures you mention, that they will rely heavily upon inference, and reasoning. They will contradict the clear Record of Writ, and invariably fail to support the whole counsel of God. It is unfortunate to be of the persuasion of mind that opposes the truth as it is written by the Author, in order to retain that which is the devise of men.
Thank you for your reply and honesty.
Comment by Phil Nickel — November 2, 2011 @ 5:46 am
[...] If the above word, modalism, is new to you, it was covered on this blog in a lengthy article back in February, Why Are Non-Trinitarians Included Among ‘Christians’? [...]
Pingback by Wednesday Link List « Thinking Out Loud — October 5, 2011 @ 5:44 am
Just a quick couple of questions that I need help answering, I thought this might be a good place to ask.
I am having trouble finding a verse in the Bible that says that Jesus sat at the right hand of the Father. It does say that He sat at the right hand of God. Does it actually say anywhere that He sat at the right hand of the Father?
The other question is: Several times in the bible Jesus is referred to as the “Son of God”, however we don’t see anywhere in the bible where the Father is referred to as the “Father of God”. Why, if they are both equal parts of the Godhead, do they never refer to the father as the “Father of God”? ( I hope these aren’t foolish questions) Thank you and God bless you all.
Comment by iRuminate — November 25, 2012 @ 2:50 am
Thanks for writing.
You seem to be tripping over some terminology which Bible readers tend to use somewhat interchangeably; I’m not sure why; but I’d encourage you to connect with a Christian pastor in your local area who can help you straighten out any confusion.
In the verses reproduced below, you see these phrases:
– sat down at the right hand of God
– sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty
– is at God’s right hand
– sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One
– standing at the right hand of God
So you see “God,” “throne of the Majesty;” “Mighty One;” and you also see “sat;” “at;” “sitting;” and “standing.”
The important thing is that “the father is not the Son; not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father, not the Son; the Son is not the Father, not the Spirit.” The doctrine of trinity is one of the most difficult thing in scripture for us to wrap our minds around, but we have a God that exists in three distinct persons that are in relationship to each other.
Your other question is mostly semantics; if Jesus is the Son of God, and then “The Father” is the Father of Jesus. In other words, the term God is by default God the Father, and the term Father is God, but as stated above, the Son is also God and the Spirit is also God; the distinctiveness of each of the three persons in the preceding paragraph notwithstanding. Does that help?
As to your last question; no, there are no foolish questions.
Hebrews 10:11-13 (NIV)
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.
Hebrews 8:1
Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven…
1 Peter 3:21-22
21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Matthew 26:64
“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Acts 7:56
“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — November 25, 2012 @ 2:25 pm
“Your other question is mostly semantics; if Jesus is the Son of God, and then “The Father” is the Father of Jesus. In other words, the term God is by default God the Father, and the term Father is God, but as you state, the Son is also God and the Spirit is also God; the distinctiveness of each of the three persons in the preceding paragraph notwithstanding. Does that help?”
Sorry, I can be a bit thick. I don’t recall stating that the Son is also God and the spirit is also God. I’m not sure why I can’t seem to understand the trinity. It seems to me that the pieces don’t fit but we are trying to force them to fit. It doesn’t ever seem to clearly state in the bible that God is a triune God. It also seems that the idea of the trinity is actually physically (or maybe spiritually) a polytheistic idea, somewhat cleverly disguised by the impossibility of 3=1.
In your reply you stated “In other words, the term God is by default God the Father, and the term Father is God, but as you state, the Son is also God and the Spirit is also God”. There are a couple of things here that I find confusing. One of them being that I don’t recall stating that the Son or the Holy Spirit is also God? The other being that if God is by default the Father, then doesn’t that mean that God isn’t triune? That the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate.
I was not raised Christian, and I had very little Christian influence growing up from outside connections. It wasn’t something that I was persuaded to do. It was by choice, and hearing my calling. I have never been particularly persuaded toward one denomination or another. I don feel that because of this, I have a very objective opinion without bias. From what i’ve heard I tend to lean toward the trinity being less possible than a single God. Mainly because I can’t grasp the idea of the trinity using logic combined with actual biblical reference. Anytime I hear biblical reference explained in a trinitarian context, it doesn’t seem to add up for me. I will continue to try to see what i cannot see now.
In regards to your reply to my first question: So it is safe to say that nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus sat at the right hand of the Father? If this is true, then why does the apostles creed say that jesus sat at the right hand of the father rather than at the right hand of God, like it says everywhere else in the bible?
Comment by iRuminate — November 25, 2012 @ 9:19 pm
Sorry, I should have edited before posting. Instead of ” I don’t feel that because of this…. it should say that “Because of this I feel that I have…”
Comment by iRuminate — November 25, 2012 @ 9:22 pm
Sorry; that should have said “as stated above” (the reference to the preceding paragraph) and I’ve corrected the original reply.
The trinity is not polytheistic. The idea is one of relationship, and it begins at the beginning in Genesis, “Let us make man in our image.” Note the plural. There are seven verses of scriptures that are considered key trinitarian indicators. The most often referenced is at Jesus’ baptism, where God the Father speaks from heaven and says, “This is my beloved son…” (italics added) and then the Holy Spirit sets on Jesus in the form of a dove. There’s also the verse in Acts which indicates that the Father gave the authority to the Son to send the Holy Spirit.
Attempts to use models as analogies may be helpful in stretching our minds, but they all break down at some point. Still the various models:
* water, ice, steam (which fails because it is ‘modalistic’)
* 1 X 1 X 1 = 1
* length, width, depth (which fails because it’s not really trinitarian)
* the three leaves of a clover (I’ve never understood that one myself)
get us thinking about things we already experience in nature that come close — but not close enough — to a trinitarian model.
The trinity is a doctrinal concept that for some reason, people who grew up in eastern religions, or grew up in areas dominated by eastern religions often have a hard time with. But the Old Testament teaching, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is one…” (italics added) is equally true in the New Testament or New Covenant times in which we now live.
The main thing is this: The centerpiece of Christianity is Jesus. Focus on Him, His life, His teachings, His atoning work on the cross; and I believe the other details will take care of themselves over time.
…As to your other comment, the framers of the Apostles Creed are simply accepting that their audience understood The Father as God. This is partially reflective of a Biblical teaching that the Son is somewhat subordinate to the Father. They are equally God, but many, many scriptures point to an order within the relationship.
Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — November 25, 2012 @ 10:35 pm
I agree that foundational beliefs must be taken into consideration when applying the title Christian to a person of group. Not for the sake of condemnation or personal rejection but if someone is not worshiping the same God we need to know it so we do not enter into false worship with them. That does not mean we hate or even dislike them and even if we don’t like a person God has told us we must treat them justly anyway. I do not fit the title Christian as a matter of fact I have not found a completely accurate title or lable for myself (others my have). I believe in the One God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Uniquely Singular, Self-existant, AlmightyGod who revealed Himself at Sinai, I believe in His chosen Messiah, Yeshua, not as God but as a fully human being, I believe there is no salvation in any other but him. I believe Yeshua is my comming King and Cohen godol (high priest) That he died and was resurrected to eternal life and will live forever as King and Priest -and I honor him as that.. In essence I do hold many of the same beliefs about Yeshua as Christian but not in his diety. Call me what you like. I will still respect and treat you with compasion and justice – just as Torah teaches and Yeshua reaffirmed.
Comment by Eileen — January 24, 2013 @ 5:59 am
Thanks for writing. If you care to write back, why not his deity? And what do you do with his claim, “I and the father are one?” I’m not wanting to debate this, I just want to learn how the puzzle pieces fit together for you. And how is the salvation in him accomplished; in other words where does the cross fit in?
Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — January 24, 2013 @ 9:19 am
The trinity is a key doctrine of the Christian faith. People can believe whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it is Christian. It is a false gospel. Even if an angel from heaven tells you differently you must not believe false doctrine. There is lots of room for variety in Christianity, but the trinity is not one of them.
Comment by Heidi — February 10, 2013 @ 2:29 pm