Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Equality w/in Trinity? (was Re: Deity of Christ, H.S. etc. Message-ID: Date: 8 Apr 91 02:10:13 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 169 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Re: Steve Peterson In article cadence!stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) writes, in response to David Williams: >Is there equality in the Trinity? >--------------------------------- >With the Father? >---------------- >You site John 14:23; 10:30 > > "In answer Jesus said to him: "if anyone loves me, he will observe my word, > and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with > him." > > "I and the Father are one." > >When saying this did Jesus mean that they formed some sort of Trinity? Some >Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding >his followers: "That they may all be one," and he added, "that they may be one >even as we are one." He used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these >instances. Obviously, Jesus' disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. >But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the >same sort of oneness that unites Jehovah and Jesus. Hi, Steve! I've read most of the correspondence between David and yourself concerning the Trinity. While I, personally, feel that any debate with the Trinity as its subject is doomed to "unresolvability", I'd like to interject a few points: 1. Be clear about which biblical translation is being used. There are examples of where different translations of the Bible differ remarkably in their specific translations of "trinity-related" passages (e.g. The New World Translation vs. the King James translations in John 1). 2. The doctrine of the Trinity is, in a sense, a "Scriptural extrapolation" (taught as dogma in the Catholic Church and many other Christian churches) in that it is never explicitly defined in Scripture with the clarity of, say, Jesus' role as "Son of God", in which the Bible is quite clear. Rather, it is a teaching that developed from the early Christian reading of the sacred texts; early Christians drew the conclusion that God must exist in Trinity (three divine Persons in one God). Note that this practice of extrapolation is not unwarranted, in general; for example, Scripture does not explicitly condemn child abuse; it is an extrapolation from the "spirit" (non-personal) of the Scriptures that leads Christians to condemn it. So, while it would be illogical to state that Scripture provides airtight PROOF of the Trinity, it would also be illogical to discount the strength of said Scriptural passages (concerning the Trinity) altogether. 3. When dealing with these Scripture references, it must be remembered that the "meaning" of these quotes may be altered, reversed, or destroyed altogether by lack of context. Simply "plucking" a Scriptural quotation for use is seldom a good way to operate in these debates. That said, a few minor technical points: > "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them > in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit" >Do those verse say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a >Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal? No, they do not, no more than >listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three >in one. I must take slight exception, here; the context of the phrase is critical, here. To "make disciples of all nations" is hardly a trivial happenstance. Christians, I believe, must assume that this proselytizing is important (if not paramount); after all, what was Jesus' purpose on earth, but that people be converted to Himself, and saved? Baptism seems to be the way to do that; thus, it would not be right to dismiss this quote of Jesus as merely an offhanded, indicative remark. To "baptize in the name of..." strikes me as a phrase which precedes a name of great importance. Also, it is common conversational convention to group items of similar importance together in sentences. Example: a speaker comes up to receive a movie award, and is listing the names of those he wishes to thank. He says, "And none of this would be possible without my producer, Phil Smith... my casting director, Sandra Philips, and the janitor, Fred Williamson." (neglecting to mention the tens or hundreds of people who had more critical roles in the moviemaking than the janitor did) Now, this would be just plain weird. In normal conversation, a speaker (or writer) sets apart groups of varying importance by grouping them in different sentences, paragraphs, chapters, or even whole books (or speeches). To group several things of wildly differing importance in the same phrase would be utterly inappropriate, especially if that group were small. The point being, it is NOT likely that the baptismal formula was meant to portray three beings of quite different significance (one infinite, one not, and one undefined). If that WERE the case, then Jesus could just as easily have said, "...in the name of the Father, and of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob." Why mention the Son and Spirit at all? In addition, if the Trinity *weren't* true, one might wonder why, in a supposedly infallible Bible, the blessed writers would leave such a glaring theological pitfall for people to fall into. (Granted, the formula could be referring to the three "forces" responsible for salvation; however, many Christian sects have considered the formula in the light of John 1:1 ("... and the Word was God."), John 1:18 ("...it is God the only Son"), John 8:58 ("'... I solemnly assure you; before Abraham came to be, I AM."), and other passages, and decided that the Trinity was the best interpretation. >Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numberous times, but that does >not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named togethere, but that does >not make them one either. Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at >his baptism Normally, I'd leave this comment alone; however, it includes a very common objection to Trinitarians: namely, how and why Jesus can interact with His Father, pray to Him, be submissive to Him, and call His Father "God". Please understand that this presents no real difficulty for Trinitarians. The doctrine of the Trinity is expressed by the following collection of equalities and inequalities: The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Trinity doctrine does NOT teach that the Father and Son are identical, nor does it teach that they are the same person. Therefore, it would not be contradictory to talk of one person of the Trinity interacting with (and/or praying to) another. Jesus, in humbling Himself, chose submission over authority, when it is said in Phillipians 2:6-7... "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." (NIV) ...suggesting that being God does not preclude being submissive. Keep in mind, also, that Jesus was fully human; His humbling of Himself was not false or halfhearted, but full and complete. Thus, Jesus (as fully human) was indeed inferior to the Father in power. This fact may well be what Scripture refers to when it talks of Jesus' lack of power when compared to the Father. And as far as calling His Father "God", this was factually true; God the Father is indeed God. It would also have been easier for His disciples and listeners to relate to His speeches if Jesus spoke of God the Father as simply "God"; had He come right out and said, "I'm God" everywhere He went, Jesus would doubtlessly have been too busy dodging rocks to say anything of importance! :) I hope this addresses the topic, somewhat! ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu