I am told that one can not be saved without accepting the doctrine of the Trinity, yet even the most capable theological minds on the planet debate over it -- not only as regards the understanding of it, but also as to whether or not it can even be derived from Scripture! Did the repentent thief on the cross know about the doctrine of the Trinity? When traditional peoples of the Pacific Islands are converted, for example, what is their perception of the doctrine of the Trinity? What about the average Christian who would seem to have little interest in the perplexing doctrinal aspects of this teaching? How important can it be if the majority of Christians have little if any knowledge of the issues which surround it? Can they really be said to believe it if they are basically ignorant concerning the biblical justification for it, as well as the many seeming contradictions in Scripture which are associated with it? Why is this teaching regarded as a fundamental truth when even the greatest Christian scholars admit to numerous technical difficulties with regard to it?
The matter is highly complex and abstract. In fact, it took the church until A.D. 451 (at the Council of Chalecedon) to finalize its formal statements most of these things issues. Even today the Eastern Orthodox Church dissents from the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant churches regarding the nature of the economic Trinity.
Let me say very clearly that I do not believe that understanding the doctrine of the Trinity (ontological or economic) is essential for salvation. In fact, I would wager that he is a rare person who understands this doctrine upon conversion.
Nevertheless, I do think it is very important that we as Christians understand at least that there is only one God, and that he exists in three distinct persons who are not identical with each other. I also think it's important that we understand Christ to be one person with two natures. These ideas are important because they have practical implications for:
The way we pray -- To whom can we pray? Is it more effective to pray to the Father than to the Son? Is there more than one God?
The way we worship -- Who can we name as the object(s) of our worship? What truths can we proclaim in his/their praise?
The way we think about our relationships with each other and with God -- In our union with Christ, are we united only to a man? Only to God? Only to a god? Can we become gods too?
Moreover, our perception of issues related to the Trinity and the hypostatic union greatly influences how we read the Bible. It affects our interpretation of many passages, and therefore it affects the applications we draw from those passages. It also affects our understanding of the Bible's (and of God's) reliability because it addresses areas of seeming contradiction. Because these issues are so fundamental to Christian life, I place great importance on them.
Certainly, some of the more technical aspects of these doctrines step rather speculatively on ground only safely trod by God. But there are some fundamental aspects of these doctrines with which no Christian scholar disagrees, and which are not terribly speculative -- namely the that God exists in three persons and one essence, and that Christ is one person with two natures, being fully God and fully man. I would hope to see great tolerance for those ignorant/agnostic in these areas. A lack of understanding of these doctrines deprives one of rich opportunities for growth and worship, but it does not threaten souls. However, there can be great danger in holding to misconceived ideas about these matters. For example, those who reject the deity and/or humanity of Christ cannot be saved (John 20:30-31; 1 John 2:22; 4:2-3; 2 John 7). In this regard I differentiate rather significantly between passive ignorance and active rejection.
I suspect that while most Christians don't think about these matters much, most also assume a great number of things that depend upon these doctrines (e.g. Jesus is a sufficient and reliable savior; it is good to pray to Jesus; baptism is to be done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). I also suspect that most Christians know a good deal more about these doctrines than they realize. Consider a parallel in grammar: most people who speak English can't parse a sentence and its constituent parts, but they can converse quite well. They recognize good grammar even though they can't define it.
There are two comments that I frequently hear about the doctrine of the Trinity as it relates to contemporary confessional Protestantism. One is that the doctrine is too abstract and speculative, and thus of little or no practical relevance. The other is that Protestantism is frequently little more than a functional Unitarianism: we pay lip service to the doctrine of the Trinity, but do not allow it to get in the way of going about our regular Christian business.
The two objections are both powerful, in large part because they are true�at least in terms of practical outworking. Protestantism has not traditionally placed the Trinity at the practical center of Christianity. As a result, the doctrine has become akin to the revered grandfather who is always invited to Christmas dinner, but sleeps on the couch after lunch and takes no active role in the family celebration.
How does one go about remedying such a situation? After all, the technical vocabulary of Trinitarian theology�person, hypo stasis, substance, and essence�does seem to support the notion that one is dealing with a highly abstract and practically irrelevant concept.
The Trinity and Worship
To point us toward a solution to this problem, we need to understand how the doctrine of the Trinity originated. It did not arise out of philosophical discussion. Rather, the doctrine has its origins in the most basic acts of Christian worship. In baptism, explicit reference is made to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The cry of praise, "Jesus is Lord!" if it is to make any sense at all, requires explanation in terms of the Trinitarian God. You cannot get more basic or practical than baptism and praising Jesus, and the doctrine that supports those activities should therefore never be presented in such a way that it appears dry as dust and irrelevant to a joyful Christian life.
If the doctrine of the Trinity is inextricably linked to Christian worship, then we should spend time reflecting upon its implications for our practical, devotional lives. One excellent way to do this is to read and meditate upon John Owen's great work, Of Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Each Person Distinctly, in Love, Grace, and Consolation. This work, published in 1657, is perhaps the most extended examination ever written of the direct way in which the Trinity should shape the Christian's devotional thinking about God.
Owen emphasizes the three persons of God far more than the unity of the Godhead. Arguably, he overemphasizes the personal distinctions. But, given the basic Unitarian tendency in much of Protestant thinking, at least at a practical level, his emphasis can perhaps be forgiven as a necessary corrective.
Underlying Owen's treatise is a clear understanding that the Christian God is not just some "god" in a generic sense. Rather, he is particularly the one God who exists in three persons. While there are many mysterious dimensions to this truth that are beyond human comprehension (even elevated and sanctified human reason), Owen shows that the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly demanded by the biblical teaching about salvation. To know salvation is to know the actions of the God who is three and the God who is one. In no other way can sense be made of the biblical material.
Owen sees Scripture as teaching that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each play particular roles in the drama of redemption, reconciliation, and consummation. The Father appoints the Son as mediator to act as prophet, priest, and king for his people. The Son willingly takes up the office, humbles himself by taking the form of a servant, and lives, dies, and rises again as the second Adam, the representative head of a new humanity. The Spirit applies Christ's work to each of God's people at the appointed time. In addition, the Spirit works in a profound way in the life of Christ, effecting his conception, strengthening his human nature, guiding and protecting him, and finally raising him from the dead. The drama of salvation is thus richly Trinitarian, and the Christian's response of praise should therefore be framed in Trinitarian terms. This truth provides Owen with the basic structure for his treatise.
Communion with the Three Persons
First, there is communion with the Father. The particular focus for this is the Father's love. Unlike caricatures of Protestant orthodoxy which picture an angry Father somehow being mollified by his Son and persuaded to be merciful, Owen is very clear that the first person of the Trinity is, in a sense, the very fountainhead of salvation, in that his love drives the whole scheme of salvation. The primary focus in Christian devotion, when it comes to God the Father, is this: that he who created the world in righteousness, wisdom, and holiness, and then saw that world desecrated by human sin, should yet love it enough to send his Son, his only Son, the Son whom he loves, to die for the salvation of sinners.
Second, there is communion with God the Son in grace. The Son did not need to accept the office of mediator; he did not need to humble himself; indeed, he considered it not robbery to be equal with God. Yet, in his infinite grace and mercy, he condescended to take up the task set before him and to see it through to death and beyond. There is a sense, therefore, in which Jesus Christ is grace, in that he exemplifies and embodies the unconditional self-giving of God on behalf of sinners. Only when we grasp the Father's love for the Son, and the fact that the Son is also God, do we really see the full magnificence of divine condescension and grace in the work of Christ.
In this context, Owen repeatedly emphasizes not only the acts of Christ in history, but also his acts in our experience. The communion of the believer with Christ has a twofold practical, ongoing aspect. First, it is one of conjugal, or marital, relationship, and this means that the believer knows Christ in a truly profound way, and, indeed, delights in him as a heavenly spouse. The language of love, enjoyment, and beauty that Owen uses here indicates that the Christian life, as it is one of communion with Christ, is to be something truly thrilling and wonderful.
Second, there is a communion in holiness. As his death and resurrection form the basis for the believer's acceptance with God, so the Son's sending of the Spirit connects to the believer's daily growth in holiness through habitual communion with God. Union with Christ and adoption in no way eclipse the forensic nature of justification, but they do provide an important dynamic in the Christian's life and experience subsequent to justification.
Third, there is communion with the Spirit. For Owen, the Spirit is intimately connected to Christ. His primary saving significance is in the role he plays in the Incarnation: he is the agent of conception; he supports, strengthens, and enlightens Christ's human nature, from birth to death; and he raises Christ from the dead. Then, in the life of believers, he fulfills numerous further functions: he applies the words of Christ; he causes believers to glorify Christ; he sheds God's love abroad in their hearts; he gives assurance of God's favor; and he is the Spirit of adoption, whereby, in Christ, we can cry out "Abba, Father!" Every step belongs distinctly to him, but every step is also vitally connected to the work of Christ.
In laying out the believer's identity and existence in terms of the saving action of the Trinity, Owen brings to the fore why it is so crucial to have a rich understanding of the Trinity for theology, not just at a theoretical level, but also in terms of the most practical aspects of Christian devotion. Of course, all of the actions of any person of the Godhead are, in a sense, actions of all three persons, given that neither Father, Son, nor Spirit does anything without the other persons being fully on board. But it is easy to forget that each person plays a distinct role in salvation, and thus in the way we relate to God. If we carefully read and reflect upon Owen's treatise, we will realize that Trinitarianism is not too abstract to be of practical value, and then we can start to frame our Christian lives and identities in truly Trinitarian dimensions.
I am a Messianic Jew who does not believe in the �Christian� doctrine of your �trinity�. Yet, Y-eshua is my Messiah�. Will I go to heaven YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Hear O Israel, YHVH is G-d, YHVH is ONE." (Deut 6:4)
I do not subscribe to trinitarian/tri-unitarian doctrines which attempt to define G-d as three Persons in One. YHVH is One. I am convinced one reason why a trinitarian doctrine was incorporated into Christianity was to explain the 'person' of Yeshua; to explain how he could be G-d. That G-d could take on human form as an earthly Messiah isn't difficult to accept -- afterall -- He'd previously supped with Abraham (Gen 18) and He had wrestled with Jacob (Gen 32) while also in human form. Our powerful G-d can manifest Himself in many forms; there is no need for these weak doctrines that attempt to sub-divide the godhead in attempts to explain "how" He does it. Trinitarians start dividing up the godhead so that the Father is one person, the Son/Yeshua is a second person, and then the Ruach (spirit) is a third person. Scripture never says G-d is divided up into three persons! The word 'trinity' isn't even Scriptural. Scripture tells us G-d is One not three. Ultimately the trinity doctrine seeks to limit our heavenly Father to merely one-third of the godhead. Isn't it easier to just accept Scripture at Its Word? We have One G-d, and He can manifest Himself in any form He chooses without needing to be subdivided to fit the manmade doctrines.
"Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:20 Who's the Father? The Father or the Ruach (Holy Spirit)? Are there two Fathers in the Trinity? Who Is The Ruach (Spirit)? Ruach is the Hebrew word for 'spirit,' it is defined as 'breath' 'air' 'strength' 'wind' 'breeze.' It's Greek equivalent used in Brit Chadasha (new testament) is pneuma also meaning 'the wind' 'to breathe' or 'blow.' Clearly the Ruach is the breath of G-d and can not be a separate person within the godhead. "Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. Genesis 1:2 "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Cor 3:17 "For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Yeshua HaMashiach" Philippians 1:19 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1 Cor 15:45 In the above passages we see the 'spirit' is easily applied to either the "Father" and the "Son." It's not a person in its own right within the godhead -- it is the outward breath and strength of YHVH.
Let's look in Scripture, starting with the most famous messianic prophecy:
"For unto us a child is born .., and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty Almighty, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6 Where is the trinity? Did G-d forget that Yeshua was to be only the Son, not the Father? Let's re-word some Scriptural passages to emphasize how the trinity doctrine affects their reading:
Yeshua said "I and the Father are One." This flat out disputes the concept of Yeshua being the 'second person of the trinity' since He is identifying Himself as the Father.
Mix in trinity doctrine, it should read: "I and the Father comprise two-thirds of a three person deity." Yeshua said "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father."Allow for the trinity doctrine, that would read: "He who has seen me has seen one-third of the godhead which is sort of like seeing the Father who is a different one-third of the godhead." It doesn't work. Yeshua is the Father as well as the Son. No separation or division is mentioned, therefore, no trinity! G-d is One, and only One. He is not a collection of personages. He can manifest Himself in many forms but He is always One. "Thus saith YHVH, thy Redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb: I am YHVH, that maketh all things; that stretched forth the heavens alone; that spread abroad the earth by Myself" Isa. 44:24
Compare Isaiah 44:24 above with Colossian 1:15-18 regarding Yeshua:
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him (Yeshua) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Now the Father YHVH created all things by Himself and yet Colossians attributes these acts to the Son, Yeshua. It is clear that Yeshua is not relegated Scripturally to only being the Son, the second person of the godhead, but that Yeshua is the Father too!
How can we know YHVH meant the Father and not a pre-incarnate Messiah? "For Thou art our Father ; for Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us; Thou, O YHVH, art our Father, our Redeemer from everlasting is Thy name." Isaiah 63:16 YHVH is the Father -- YHVH is also the Redeemer! "I, even I, am YHVH; and beside Me there is no saviour." Isa. 43:11 These show clearly that YHVH is the Father, our Redeemer and Saviour. Yet the trinity doctrine tries to split up G-d into divisions, assigning the Father one role, and the Son a different role of Saviour/Redeemer. It will not work! These problems cease to exist if we acknowledge that YHVH is G-d, and Messiah is YHVH, and therefore YHVH and Messiah are one and the same. The trinitarian distinctions between Father, Son and Ruach conflict with Scripture which make no such subdivisions within the godhead. There is One G-d, YHVH. Period. Who was the pre-incarnate Messiah? It's the same as the incarnate Messiah -- it's YHVH, our sole Father, Creator, L-rd and G-d.
There is so much more to debate however that would be a 1000 pages long�lol. My salvation is in YHVH /Y-shua and Him alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well...ima a Christian and I've studied a bit...Some...not all messianics struggle with this concept and have found what they believe are glitches in the translations so they stumble with this...Jesus did say that some would not see or hear...but lets go back to the Beginning...Genisis ~ Let US make man in OUR Image" it doesnt say in your and mine [ two/plural ] it says Let US...more than one ?...more than two maybe ?...and Jesus said in the NT "did I not say Ye are like God's"...Jude asks...Ifin we are Created & Made in the Image of God...and being of Mind [carnal] Body [physical] Spirit [soul]...then Trinity or Triune is a purty good choice of word to convey God's Unity...and Yes...I believe it is part of the Doctrine of Christ Jesus/Yahshua and it matters....xo
