• Welcome to White Horse Forums. We ask that you would please take a moment to introduce yourself in the New Members section. Tell us a bit about yourself and dive in!

Defining the godhead - an open discussion on Unitarianism, Binitarianism and Trinitarianism

O'Darby III said:
I'm still waiting for someone to give me a convincing explanation as to how the fish-eating, resurrection-body, shaking-hands-in-heaven Jesus squares with "God is Spirit" or any sort of Trinitarian notion. If the Logos is now this Jesus, hasn't there been a fundamental change in the godhead?
Click to expand...
You know, O'Darby, it seems to me you raise a pretty strong objection to the Trinity.

The Trinity is intended to describe an ontological reality - the godhead is actually supposed to comprise a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not simply an abstraction, a useful way of "talking about" or "thinking about" God. It's soooo real that we doubt you're a Christian if you don't (pretend to) believe it.

God is Spirit. God is immutable. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Yes?

Whatever the Trinity ontologically was before the Incarnation, it must be now. Yes?

Before the Incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity - the Word, the Logos - was Spirit. Yes? It then Incarnated, "became flesh" in Jesus. Yes? This in itself would seem to be a bit of an analytical problem, but we'll play along and say that the Logos somehow remained intact as the Second Person of the Trinity even though it was present in Jesus. For this to be true, it almost seems there would have to have been a "Chinese wall" between the two natures of Jesus, so the Logos remained Spirit - which was indeed one of the early analytical difficulties.

But after the Ascension, with Jesus in his resurrection body, what is the Trinity? Is Jesus part of it? If so, then God is apparently neither pure Spirit nor immutable. The Trinity seemingly now consists of two Spirits and a resurrection body. Hello? Is the Logos back to being fully intact but capable of manifesting itself as Jesus in heaven just as it did during the Incarnation? Even if this is the case, the Trinity is seemingly something different from what it was before the Incarnation.

Despite being presented as an ontological reality, I don't think this is what the Trinity really is. I think it is indeed simply an abstraction, a way of "talking about" and "thinking about" Jesus. It's not really even a way of talking about and thinking about God per se, but about how Jesus can be God because that's what our theology wants him to be. To me, it just doesn't seem to "work."

I've read huge scholarly works on the history of the doctrine. I don't ever recall seeing discussed the analytical difficulty raised above. I first saw it raised by someone else on another forum earlier this year and just about jumped out of my socks that at last someone else seemed to be troubled by the same issue.

Truly, if someone has a whiz-bang clever answer, I'm all ears.
 
O'Darby III said:
If the Logos is now this Jesus, hasn't there been a fundamental change in the godhead?
Click to expand...
That's great question/observation actually.

- The Logos/logic/reason/plan was with God in the beginning.
- The Logos/Word was God.
- The Logos became flesh. (enter Jesus the man) God the Son.
- Jesus (as the Logos) was present at creation. (nothing created without him)
- The Logos/logic/reason/plan is still in force.
- Jesus returned to God the Father (as God the Son) to sit at his right hand "in glory".

Has there been a fundamental change in the godhead? Yes, I think so.
There was no Jesus until the Logos became flesh.

]
 
SteVen said:
That's great question/observation actually.

- The Logos/logic/reason/plan was with God in the beginning.
- The Logos/Word was God.
- The Logos became flesh. (enter Jesus the man) God the Son.
- Jesus (as the Logos) was present at creation. (nothing created without him)
- The Logos/logic/reason/plan is still in force.
- Jesus returned to God the Father (as God the Son) to sit at his right hand "in glory".

Has there been a fundamental change in the godhead? Yes, I think so.
There was no Jesus until the Logos became flesh.

]
Click to expand...
And, seemingly, God is no longer pure Spirit.

I think the Trinitarian answer has to be that the Trinity is "intact" after the Resurrection and Ascension in the same way it was "intact" during the Incarnation - which to my mind begs the question, "OK, so how was it intact during the Incarnation?"

I think this is exactly why people do tend to picture the three "persons" as sitting around a heavenly campfire roasting heavenly weenies and discussing what to do about this nuisance O'Darby - it makes it easier to fit Jesus into the picture.

If we simply have one God with Jesus as his only begotten Son - voila, far fewer analytical difficulties and Jesus is still "divine."
 
O'Darby III said:
I think the Trinitarian answer has to be that the Trinity is "intact" after the Resurrection and Ascension in the same way it was "intact" during the Incarnation - which to my mind begs the question, "OK, so how was it intact during the Incarnation?"
Click to expand...
The Spirit was already moving in the OT. Especially at creation and with the Prophets.
The incarnation introduced God the Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. (whatever that means)

O'Darby III said:
If we simply have one God with Jesus as his only begotten Son - voila, far fewer analytical difficulties and Jesus is still "divine."
Click to expand...
Jesus characterization of the Holy Spirit as Advocate gives him person-hood. IMO
The Advocate is more than an impersonal manifestation of God the Father.

]
 
SteVen said:
Jesus characterization of the Holy Spirit as Advocate gives him person-hood. IMO
The Advocate is more than an impersonal manifestation of God the Father.
Click to expand...
Yes, but even there I have no difficulty with one God who is Spirit begetting Jesus and operating as Spirit in the world today.

When Trinitarians are finished describing the Son and the Spirit, I sometimes wonder what the Father's job description looks like! :) "Oh, just kinda sits around being angry, storing up wrath and doing whatever else it is Fathers do."
 
O'Darby III said:
And, seemingly, God is no longer pure Spirit
Click to expand...
"Pure Spirit" may be a gross oversimplification of what God's "essential nature" really is. Whatever God's "essential nature" is, this "Nature" may well have the ability to manifest itself as a carpenter who eats filet-o-fish sandwiches for breakfast, as a burning bush that never gets consumed, or as a man who could wrestle with Jacob until his hip dislocated. (Was the Burning Bush a "person"?)

I hope I'm not the only one here who's willing to say that he has no freakin' idea what God's "essence" or "essential nature" or "ousia" REALLY is.

An old pastor of mine used a phrase that stuck with me: When reading the account of the Transfiguration, "The author is attempting to describe in words something for which there are no words".
 
Joker said:
An old pastor of mine used a phrase that stuck with me: When reading the account of the Transfiguration, "The author is attempting to describe in words something for which there are no words".
Click to expand...
That's a curious thing. There are two interpretations of that passage. One says that the Transfiguration was a vision, the others say that it actually happened. (which is the interpretation that I embrace) Why would Peter offer to build shelters if it was a vision?

]
 
Joker said:
"Pure Spirit" may be a gross oversimplification of what God's "essential nature" really is. Whatever God's "essential nature" is, this "Nature" may well have the ability to manifest itself as a carpenter who eats filet-o-fish sandwiches for breakfast, as a burning bush that never gets consumed, or as a man who could wrestle with Jacob until his hip dislocated. (Was the Burning Bush a "person"?)

I hope I'm not the only one here who's willing to say that he has no freakin' idea what God's "essence" or "essential nature" or "ousia" REALLY is.

An old pastor of mine used a phrase that stuck with me: When reading the account of the Transfiguration, "The author is attempting to describe in words something for which there are no words".
Click to expand...
But this is consistent with what I have always said: The Trinity (and other doctrines) are nothing more than abstractions, human efforts to put human words for the purpose of human "understanding" of matters that are completely and utterly outside the human frame of reference. This is why I admire the Gnostics and other sects who admitted the One True God was simply unknowable except through specific emanations. The problem with the Trinity (and other doctrines) is that they aren't presented as abstractions - they are presented as ontological realities, so critical that your faith is in jeopardy if you don't (pretend) to believe them. "I can't even get my mind around it, but by God I believe it." Fine, God is happy.
 
I meant to edit the above post to add the following but apparently waited too long:

The questions I pose about the Trinity aren't posed in the expectation I will receive "answers." They are posed to illustrate that the attempt to posit the Trinity as an ontological reality is hopeless. When you try to think about it as an ontological reality - to "picture" it in your mind - you just end up with a headache. It's an abstraction that attempts to tie together other doctrines, not to express a reality. My questions are merely intended to illustrate this. The goofiness is in insisting that to be a Christian one MUST think of God and Jesus in terms of this abstraction, precisely as though it were an ontological reality.
 
O'Darby III said:
This is why I admire the Gnostics and other sects who admitted the One True God was simply unknowable except through specific emanations.
Click to expand...
But isn't this what orthodox Judaism and Christianity has always said? We may have to tear up your Heretics club membership card.

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature... (Hebrews 1:1-3a)

God can only be known through what He revealed through the prophets and through Jesus. This assumes that Jesus was one of those "emanations" (is an emanation like a hypostasis?) and that whatever it was the Prophets encountered was also an emanation. That's about as orthodox as you can get. (But the guardians of Orthodoxy need to protect their territory; hence the Cessationist doctrine. No more nocturnal emanations, thank you very much.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top