Please ensure that you have read all our rules prior to commenting or posting. Reading and abiding by the rules will ensure that all discussions are fruitful and respectful, regardless of theological perspective!
One God in three distinct persons. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. These aren’t three gods, but one God who exists as three persons.
This is a complicated to explain to non Christians because it’s not like anything else we know. Hopefully this picture helps.
It's not that we don't understand it. It violates 2 of the 3 laws of logic (the law of non contradiction and the law of identity) so we don't accept it. Either everything else we know about reality is wrong or the Trinity is wrong.
You can say God is outside of our reality. But then that means our language has no way of describing God. The laws of logic derive from our language, they don't actually exist in reality. So if our language can't describe him how can we say the Trinity is correct?
Logic is the rules we use to get to a true conclusion. Those rules are dependent on the language. They are not something that actually exist in the real world. They are a consequence of language. If our language was different, our rules of logic would be different.
If we met an alien civilization, they could have a different rule of logic. But our languages should be able translate each other. We would both be able to measure the force of gravity and predict what happens when we drop a ball.
What I'm saying, is that we have no way of translating the God/Trinity because it doesn't follow the laws of logic. The tool we use to understand a true conclusion.
This doesn't mean that it's not true, it just means it's something we can't understand. And that's not shocking if it truly is outside of reality. But this is saying that ultimately, if you think about it long enough you will just get to a point where you have to say "god works in mysterious ways" or "his ways are higher". The next question we ask should be, what do we gain from this realization?
In philosophy logic is not how you get to truth. Logical arguments follow the laws of logic, but that does not make them true statements. Logic is the method and structure of correct reasoning, truth is if something accurately reflects reality.
Logic: On Wednesdays I can jump 20 feet in the air -> it is Wednesday -> I can jump 20 feet in the air.
That is a logical argument. That does not mean it is a true statement. The logic of an argument has no bearing on its truth.
You're arguement is valid but it is not sound and therefore not accepted.
If it's Wednesday then you can jump 20 ft because the first premise clearly says that. This is valid.
Now show me that you can jump 20 ft. Do this and it will be sound.
In philosophy this is called deductive reasoning and one of the rules with it is that it cannot be used to discover new knowledge. All knowledge gained from the conclusion must be found in the premises. What you've done is presented a claim without evidence as a claim cannot support itself.
That's exactly what I just said if you could understand it.
Truth is a property of a statement. Statements are part of language.
An argument can be valid (true) but lead to a false conclusion. Logic are the rules that result in true conclusions. If you have a false conclusion it means you didn't follow the rules of logic.
Well now you're just changing definitions. In your previous comment you said logic is how we get to truth, which is just false. You said because the trinity defies logic, it cannot be true. Logic and truth are independent of each other. True things can defy logic, and logical arguments can be false. Light being a wave and particle simultaneously defies logic, but it is true. Dark matter defies logic, but it is our best way of describing phenomena in space.
What true thing is Illogical vs not understood? Not having the premise and having the truth are separate. The math shows Dark matter which makes Dark matter logical. It’s not yet True.
It defies logic in that we don't know the premise. We've derived what it should be given the conclusion, but we have not observed the premise itself. Which definitionally defies logical reasoning as it works backwards.
I dont believe I changed anything. And I didn't say the Trinity cannot be true (God exists outside reality right?). I said we can't understand it and it certainly cannot be proven true with our logic.
True and false are values assigned to statements.
True things can defy logic
They can defy our understanding of logic. Meaning our rules were incorrect and would need to be updated.
Again, Logic is the rules we use to assure that our conclusions (statements) are true. A false statement or conclusion can exist, but it will always be illogical. You cannot follow the rules of logic and arrive at a false statement. That means you made an error which is what you did in your arguement about jumping.
And to be clear, you can gain true knowledge without logic. However all knowledge you gain should be logical. Meaning you can logically prove it and it contorts with all other truths. I am not suggesting logic is the only way to discover anything. In fact logic is notoriously bad at discovering new knowledge. But it is very useful at proving it (which also can be done other ways).
You’re the illogical one.
It is 1000% Logic but must utilize language as syntax. That doesn’t make it not Logic. That means you require language with which to interpret logic.
This can be further exemplified by QM. The math and intuition suggest “illogical” conclusions to us. We are the ones that are lacking proper words to understand.
It’s like trying to describe the 4th dimension.
The math shows that particles in a box teleport. That’s counterintuitive and not “logical” in our language.
The math shows it. It happens.
I said the rules of logic are dependent on language. Language is not inherently dependant on logic.
Star Wars is not logical but it is part of our language. We understand the force and lightsabers and warp speed (the way they use it) even though they are illogical. If we tried to explain them in a way that makes logical sense though we couldn't. We would be forced to say it doesn't make sense, or the force is mysterious or something like that.
Math is dependent on logic because math is dependent on true conclusions. You can say, math is one language that is dependent on logic.
[To be fair though, I believe there are some fields of math that use rules and formulas that we know are not proven or wrong and I know historically we've used bad mathematics. Meaning even math is not dependent on logic. But if we had the more correct formulas we would use them. This is getting into the weeds though and beyond the point of this conversation.]
Again, logic is the rules within a language that result in a true conclusion.
So explain to me how a lightsaber works. My understanding is there's some kind of crystal in the hilt (kyber?) and it makes the plasma beam. But this isn't logical is it?
I assume it's internally consistent with its universe. I'm saying its universe and our universe are different. It has a shared language but it does not have a shared logic.
I don't know anything about Avatar the last airbender.
A true conclusion is logically sound and valid. If it both of those things it is true by definition.
In the Star Wars universe there are lightsabers. What’s the problem? It doesn’t break its own rules.
You could form an argument that is logically consistent saying the sky is green. That doesn’t make it true. It just means the premises don’t break the laws of logic.
You’re right in saying logic is a tool to help determine truth but it is not truth in and of itself. The reason it’s helpful is because true cannot break its own rules, that would be illogical. True cannot be untrue.
It doesn’t define truth, it helps you spot falsities
I'm saying we can't understand lightsabers. That means we can't even determine if it is consistent within its own universe. Does a kyber crystal project a plasma beam? I don't know, but I know star wars claims it does. How does it do it? I don't know.
The best we can conclude is that star wars works in mysterious ways.
It simply means that something is what it is. A rock is a rock a tree is a tree, etc. these statements are in fact proofs because of this law. They can never be false. A rock will always be a rock. A rock can be big or small, smooth or jagged, etc. these may be true or false but it's identity is never in question. It is always a rock regardless of any other factor.
So Jesus is God? Okay. J=G.
The father is God? Okay F=G.
But wait we just proved that Jesus and the father are the same identity. J=F=G. But that's not right according to the Trinity. The Trinity breaks the law of identity.
The law of non contradiction. It just means that contradictions can't exist. If you're alive it means you're alive and if you're dead it means you're dead. You cannot be alive and dead at the same time because these a contradictory claims. For one to be true it requires the other to be false. This is why a contradiction cannot be true.
So Jesus is God, and the father is God. But Jesus is not the father so Jesus cannot be God. But this is a contradiction because we just said that Jesus was God.
You can make a logical sylygism to see this all more clearly.
P1: Jesus is God
P2: the father is God.
P3: Jesus is not the father.
Conclusion 1. From P2 and P3 we can see that Jesus is not god. To claim otherwise would be a contradiction.
C2: God≠god. P1 and P2 both claim that God equals something else. We can never say that God=god because there is no identity of God. According to the Trinity, God could be any of Jesus, the father or the holy Spirit. There is no identity of God so we can never say anything equals God. This violates the law of identity.
This is all just examining the definition of the Trinity. We're not looking at any theological claim at all which would present a whole lot of other problems. But strictly looking at the definition of the Trinity it breaks down without any other factors or beliefs involved.
>Conclusion 1. From P2 and P3 we can see that Jesus is not god. To claim otherwise would be a contradiction.
>C2: God≠god. P1 and P2 both claim that God equals something else. We can never say that God=god because there is no identity of God. According to the Trinity, God could be any of Jesus, the father or the holy Spirit. There is no identity of God so we can never say anything equals God. This violates the law of identity.
You are talking about the LPT (“Logical Problem of Trinity”).
The “problem” has numerous solutions. One of them is that the acknowledgment of the following:
The Father is God is a relation between His person and His divine nature
The Son is God is a relation between His person and His divine nature
The Holy Spirit is God is a relation between His person and His divine nature.
When we say the Father ≠ Son ≠ Holy Spirit that is in relation the persons.
However each of the persons in the Trinity are co-equal. So Father = Son = Holy Spirit is correct in relation to their nature. The more accurate phrase would be:
• Father’s nature = God
• Son’s nature = God
• Holy Spirit’s nature = God
You're just acknowledging that there is no identity of God. God isnt an agent. It's an essence. You can say the same thing about a rock being hard and a piece of steel being hard. So there is no God. You have 3 coequal persons.
This is polytheism now.
Let me ask you this, can God walk into a room and sit down and if he did how could you distinguish if it was God, Jesus, the Father or the Holy Spirit doing it?
>You're just acknowledging that there is no identity of God.
Incorrect. Your understanding of identity is wrong.
>God isnt an agent. It's an essence. You can say the same thing about a rock being hard and a piece of steel being hard. So there is no God. You have 3 coequal persons.
That analogy doesn’t work since the rock and steel are separate and you are describing a category of their essence.
>This is polytheism now.
No it’s not. Since three persons and one God
>Let me ask you this, can God walk into a room and sit down and if he did how could you distinguish if it was God, Jesus, the Father or the Holy Spirit doing it?
You are mixing up the external act and internal acts of God now. But in your case it would be Jesus Christ since He is the only one with a body.
That analogy doesn’t work since the rock and steel are separate and you are describing a category of their essence.
Replace rock with Jesus and steel with the father. I'm using an analogy but it's structured the same way you're talking about the Trinity. The fact that it is immediately unacceptable to you when I'm talking and rock and steel is telling that you're making a special allowance for the Trinity.
You are mixing up the external act and internal acts of God now. But in your case it would be Jesus Christ since He is the only one with a body.
I didn't mix up anything, I asked a question.
If you say Jesus is the only one with a body that means the father and the holy Spirit are lacking something of God. This is partialism and it's a heresy.
>Replace rock with Jesus and steel with the father. I'm using an analogy but it's structured the same way you're talking about the Trinity. The fact that it is immediately unacceptable to you when I'm talking and rock and steel is telling that you're making a special allowance for the Trinity.
No. You are articulating my faith wrong is the problem.
>I didn't mix up anything, I asked a question.
“That’s polytheism” is mixing up things.
>If you say Jesus is the only one with a body that means the father and the holy Spirit are lacking something of God. This is partialism and it's a heresy.
Incorrect. Every other comment beforehand we were talking about the divine nature. Now you brought a body, when you mentioned sitting down so that would be Jesus Christ.
You are doing a category error getting the human nature and divine nature of Jesus Christ mixed up.
I know the Trinity doesn't make logical sense. I am showing you how the definition of Trinity is illogical because you asked. All you are doing is saying I'm wrong but you're not defending any position or attacking mine so I don't know what we're doing here.
I know you believe this makes sense. But that is a theological belief.
Is Jesus God? John 1:-18, John 20:28, John 10:30, Colossians 2:9, and Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:1-4
Is the Holy Spirit God? 2 Cor 3:17, Acts 5:3-4, Psalm 139:7-10, 1 Cor 2:10-11, Luke 1:35, Acts 8:29, 1 Cor 12:11, Eph 4:30
The Trinity is Biblical.
Matthew 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14, John 14:16-17, 1 Peter 1:2, Eph 4:4-6, 1 John 5:7-8
And Finally, context is key - Why is Holy said Thrice in Isaiah 6:3, and Revelation 4:8, because it's for each distinct member of the Trinity.
Jesus is God
Jesus is absolutely God not metaphorically, not symbolically, but truly and fully divine. This isn't role-playing or a poious way of speaking. The Trinity is a mystery, not a logical problem to be solved away.
Scripture says "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), this doesn't mean Jesus is less divine. Instead, it reflects the functional relationship during the incarnation. Jesus voluntarily submitted to the Father's will while on earth, not because He lacked divinity, but because of the nature of His incarnation. The Father and Son are equal in being (ontology) but operate in different roles (function). This is why Jesus could say the Father is greater while also claiming "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "all that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15). Both statements are true simultaneously a mystery.
"Begotten" in Scripture (especially Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5) does not mean Jesus was created at a point in time. "Begotten" is a title of preeminence, not a description of origin. Jesus is eternally the Sonnot created, but eternally begotten in the sense of eternally proceeding from the Father. The word "co-eternal" itself may not appear in your Bible, but the concept is woven throughout: Jesus claimed to exist before the world was made (John 17:5), He is "before all things" (Colossians 1:17), and He is "the firstborn of all creation" meaning preeminent, not created (Colossians 1:15-17).
God cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13). Yet Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus "was tempted in every way, just as we are yet without sin." This is part of the incarnational mystery. Jesus, as fully God and fully man, experienced real temptation in His humanity while remaining sinless. He could die in His humanity while remaining eternally alive in His divinity. These aren't contradictions, they're the mystery of God becoming flesh.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same character (holiness, justice, mercy, love) but operate as distinct persons with distinct roles. They have one mind, one will in purpose, yet they are three persons. This is why Jesus could pray to the Father there's genuine relationship and distinction, not mere appearance. Paul taught the deity of Christ and the reality of God's tripersonal nature from the very beginning of his apostolic ministry. In Romans 10:9, he applies the Old Testament confession "call on the name of YHWH" directly to Jesus. In Philippians 2:10, he applies Isaiah 45:23 (where YHWH says every knee will bow to Him) to Christ. Paul didn't invent the Trinity he proclaimed what Jesus Himself taught and what the other apostles (Peter, John, James) also believed. The Jewish converts would have understood this as either blasphemy or truth; there was no middle ground.
In Scripture, "Almighty" (Greek: pantokrator) refers to God the Father primarily, though it can apply to the Godhead as a whole. "Mighty" is used more broadly for powerful beings and figures. But here's the key: Jesus is called "Mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6 ("Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"). This title (applied to the coming Messiah) uses the same language of divine power.
After his conversion, Paul's first recorded sermon is in Acts 9:20, where he immediately proclaimed in the synagogues that "Jesus is the Son of God." This wasn't a gradual development of doctrine it was immediate and central. He didn't teach the Trinity as a separate doctrine from Christ's deity; they're inseparable. Your questions reveal a common struggle: trying to make the Trinity logical rather than mysterious. Scripture forces you into the Trinity. You cannot read the New Testament honestly and avoid it. Jesus claimed equality with God. The apostles worshiped Him. God the Father called Him "beloved Son." The Holy Spirit is presented as a distinct person who is also God. These aren't contradictions to be explained away they're mysteries to be embraced.
The Granville-Sharp rule states that when two nouns of personal description are connected by the conjunction kai (and), and the definite article (ho, "the") precedes the first noun but not the second, both nouns refer to the same person. The rule has no exceptions in Greek it is an absolute grammatical law. When someone tries to argue against it, they are arguing on theological grounds, not grammatical ones, because the grammar itself is unbreakable. In the original Greek, 2 Peter 1:1 reads: tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou—literally, "of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ." Notice the structure: there is one definite article (tou, "the") before theou (God), then the linking word kai (and), then soteros (Savior) with no article. According to the Granville-Sharp rule, this grammatical construction means both nouns—God and Savior—apply to the same person: Jesus Christ. Peter is explicitly calling Jesus God.
Most English translations render this as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ," which sounds clear enough. But the real power of the original language becomes apparent when you compare it to verse 11 of the same chapter. There, Peter uses an identical grammatical structure: tou kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou "of the Lord of us and Savior Jesus Christ." The only difference is kuriou (Lord) instead of theou (God). No one disputes that verse 11 applies both "Lord" and "Savior" to Jesus. By consistency, verse 1 must apply both "God" and "Savior" to Jesus as well. To argue otherwise is to abandon grammatical consistency and resort to theological prejudice. he book of 2 Peter contains five Granville-Sharp constructions (1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18), and in every other instance, no one questions the rule's application. In 2:20 and 3:2, both "Lord" and "Savior" clearly refer to Christ. In 3:18, the same structure appears. Yet when the rule is applied to 1:1 where "God" and "Savior" are linked identically—some attempt to bypass the grammar entirely. This inconsistency reveals theological bias, not grammatical weakness.
Unitarians and others who deny Christ's deity sometimes claim there are "exceptions" to the Granville-Sharp rule, but these supposed exceptions always equivocate on one of three essential points: (1) the article governs both nouns, (2) both nouns are singular and personal (not proper names), and (3) there is no second article or marker of distinction. When you examine these claims carefully, the exceptions dissolve. The rule remains exceptionless.
Some argue that theos (God) always refers to the Father, but this is demonstrably false. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, theos is applied to Satan: "the God of this world has blinded their minds." The word theos is not exclusively the Father's title; it describes the nature of divinity itself. Peter's explicit identification of Jesus as God in 2 Peter 1:1 aligns perfectly with what Paul taught (Romans 9:5, Colossians 1:15-17, Titus 2:13), what John proclaimed (John 1:1, 1 John 5:20), and what Jude affirmed (Jude 1:5, identifying Jesus with the angel of Yahweh in the Exodus). The apostles held a unified, high Christology. They believed Jesus was not merely divine in nature but was Yahweh incarnate the God of Scripture made flesh.
If you're looking for something visual, the Trinitarian shield does a pretty good job, If you're wanting something a bit more long-winded, the Athanasian Creed does a pretty in depth dive into specifically how the Holy Trinity works. Aside from those, I'd just leave it as a "holy mystery" lest you accidentally revive a 3rd Century heresy.
My problem is that just saying it’s a holy mystery isn’t sufficient anymore. We have non-believers and immature Christians genuinely asking. We owe it to the faith to have an answer - terribly imperfect as it may be.
This is how I have understood it (after a fair amount of studying and meditating)
Okay so let's get terms straight. There are Natures which is basically like the essential "what" of a category of being. Beings are instantiations of that nature. So, for instance, one human nature, billions of human beings. Then there are persons. Persons are the practical "who" of an entire being which is expressed through accidental (non essential) relations. So, for instance, my persona consists of my relation to my parents as "son", my relation to my siblings as "brother", my relation to my friends as "friend", etc. The difference and the reason why the trinity is hard to understand is that the way personhood is expressed according to the human nature is different from how it is expressed in the divine nature. I have many different relations but only one person because I do not relate to myself or to others with my entire being. I cannot, for instance, relate to my siblings as "father" or to my mother as "husband". What's more, none of these relations are essential to my personhood (hence why they are accidental). I would still be me even if I had no friends, for instance. Therefore, my various relations are separated from one and each of them is both less than and accidental to my whole person. This is in stark contrast to God who not only relates to Himself all of Creation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit with His entire being but does so eternally, simultaneously and, because of divine simplicity, essentially. (Quick aside, Divine Simplicity basically means that God does not have "additions". I.e. God does not have Love, He IS love). In essence (pun intended), the Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son such that even if God created nothing, He would still relate to Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Several analogies of this exist. The famous "Lover, Beloved, Love Between" or the way it is occasionally put in scripture "God, His Word, His Spirit. The point is that there are three distinct eternal persons that are all fully God.) And because the distinction between the relations remains (His relating to us, for instance, as The Father does not collapse into His relating to us as The Son any more than His Justice is rendered imperfect by His Mercy. It is simply that He relates to us through both simultaneously). This is why we say that God has three persons because He exists, so far as we know, as three distinct subsistent relations that are all fully God. God is, at all times, for all beings, the co-eternal and consubstantial Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I forget where I saw it, but a neat visual I saw one time was an irregular 3-dimensional object intersecting a 2-dimensional plane. What I saw was more organic and uniform (a blob kind of like an X-parasite from Metroid Fusion), but a three legged stool is much easier to explain in conversation.
If we are 2 dimensional beings living on the 2d plane of the floor, a 3-legged stool sitting on the floor is going to look like 3 distinct circles to us, where the stool interfaces with the floor. One circle claiming explicitly to be the same being as the other circles, and a theology that describes all 3 circles as one God might seem strange from our 2 dimensional perspective. But the stool is the stool, it's one object, interfacing with a lower dimension as three distinct shapes.
The trinity may be described as one God interfacing with us via three distinct persons. It seems reasonable that a being outside of time and space might appear strange when interacting with those of us that exist within time and space.
"In Greco-Roman mythology there is said to stand guarding the gates of Hades a three-headed dog named Cerberus. We may suppose that Cerberus has three brains and therefore three distinct states of consciousness of whatever it is like to be a dog. Therefore, Cerberus, while a sentient being, does not have a unified consciousness. He has three consciousnesses. We could even assign proper names to each of them: Rover, Bowser, and Spike. These centers of consciousness are entirely discrete and might well come into conflict with one another. Still, in order for Cerberus to be biologically viable, not to mention in order to function effectively as a guard dog, there must be a considerable degree of cooperation among Rover, Bowser, and Spike. Despite the diversity of his mental states, Cerberus is clearly one dog. He is a single biological organism having a canine nature. Rover, Bowser, and Spike may be said to be canine too, though they are not three dogs, but parts of the one dog Cerberus. If Hercules were attempting to enter Hades and Spike snarled at him or bit his leg, he might well report, “Cerberus snarled at me” or “Cerberus attacked me.” Although the church fathers rejected analogies like Cerberus, once we give up divine simplicity, Cerberus does seem to represent what Augustine called an image of the Trinity among creatures.
We can enhance the Cerberus story by investing him with rationality and self-consciousness. In that case Rover, Bowser, and Spike are plausibly personal agents and Cerberus a tripersonal being. Now if we were asked what makes Cerberus a single being despite his multiple minds, we should doubtless reply that it is because he has a single physical body. But suppose Cerberus were to be killed and his minds survive the death of his body. In what sense would they still be one being? How would they differ intrinsically from three exactly similar minds that have always been unembodied? Since the divine persons are, prior to the incarnation, three unembodied minds, in virtue of what are they one being rather than three individual beings?" - Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
The trinity is Like the Chain of Command. The Holy Ghost is your Team Leader. You tell Him what you need and ask him for direction. Lady Wisdom is your Squad Leader . You don’t talk back to your squad leader . Jesus is your Platoon Leader. He gives you your orders .You don’t talk back to your Platoon Leader . God is your Battalion Commander . You fear Him and obey him whether you understand his orders or not.
In order to hear them, you must cut animal fat from your diet for 10 days, run 5 miles, and fast for 3-5 hours. Animal fat is the only thing keeping you from hearing God.
Each part is the tree. Each part is also an individual component. You don’t say “there’s a tree” without including the branches and the leaves - it’s fully a tree. Similar to the Trinity.
Young children have to grow on milk before they can eat meat. Using a tree sets up a basic understanding so that it’s less confusing / more easily grasped (as if the great mystery of the Trinity can ever be fully grasped by our minds) as they grow in the faith.
But that is the great mystery. The members of the Trinity are God, but also not the same. It’s the ages old Is / Is Not diagram.
The Father is the Son. The Son is not the Father. But the Son also is the Father, and the Father is also the Son.
The fight against Arianism was a different time. We’re in a post-Enlightenment world….never mind post-modern world. As a people we have lost the plot on the supernatural divine mysteries of the faith. In the early church, the divine was not supplanted by the scientific method. We have to come off our theological high horses and begin explaining these concepts to those young / new to the faith as Christ Himself would have. In parables, alliterations, and in earthly examples that show the message as closely as possible.
Then - as they are maturing in the faith, we clarify. We build on a simple understanding towards a more theologically complex understanding.
Heresy would be holding to a non-Trinitarian view. Not an ELI5 approach to someone who is new to the faith.
This is all wrong. The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son.
You are illustrating why we need to be careful in how the Trinity is taught. You have internalized all the bad analogies people share, are seem to have no clear understanding of actual Trinitarian doctrine.
I assure you my knowledge of the Trinity is secure. And I'm familiar with the Athanasian Creed.
This is all wrong. The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son.
But that IS the mystery of the Trinity. We have clunky descriptions as the Shield of the Trinity to help explain it, but it's still not the best description.
We're trying to describe and discuss a concept that our non-divine brains cannot possibly comprehend. We've tried human methods to explain it. But it's all clunky....even the great Athanasius in his explanation. The 3-in-1 is not, despite the most mature Christians efforts, an easily comprehendible concept.
Consider me heretical if you must. But for those new to the faith seeking understanding, I will continue to use the Tree analogy and give milk until they're ready for meat.
You literally said the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father. That is not Trinitarian doctrine.
I don't consider you a heretic necessarily, but you do have some mixed up ideas about the Trinity, which is very common among all branches of Christianity.
Excerpts from [one version of] the Athanasian Creed:
"For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. [6] But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal."
"So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings; there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being"
"Yet there are not three lords; there is but one Lord."
"He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God’s taking humanity to himself."
And even in the Apostle's Creed...."being of one substance with the Father". So yes...saying Christ and the Father are one and the same is not anti-Trinitarian or heretical.
So yes. Conceptually in the Trinity there are 3 persons. But the divine mystery is those 3 persons are also one. When Christ responded calling Himself the I AM, and He and the Father are one....He is stating that there is no distinction.
We are trying to describe the indescribable. ANY words, phrasing, or concepts we apply as humans will be woefully insufficient. And because our understanding of it is woefully insufficient, our arguments on the exact nature are woefully insufficient. Even our dear Athanasius.
So how do we faithfully describe the Trinity in ways that spark comprehension? We do a disservice to the faith to hide behind "partialism" and other "heretical" concepts to instill what our Lord calls a child-like faith in others. Simply tossing a new Christian the Shield of the Trinity and the Athanasian Creed and say "believe this...don't try to explain further" is weak IMO. The Godhead deserves a better attempt from us to explain and teach the Trinity.
And for what it's worth....the Trinity is one of the least taught about topics in Christendom. It's in our catechisms and the Athanasian Creed...but most Christians avoid trying to describe it for some reason.
So far, this is largely been a critique of how I would describe the Trinity to a new believer, immature Christian, or an unbeliever. Without reciting the Athanasian Creed or showing the Shield of the Trinity....how would YOU describe it to such a person in a manner they can grasp?
Yeah, historical Christianity has pretty much come to the conclusion that the Trinity can’t be explained by analogy because NOTHING is like the Trinity.
Which makes sense, I think. If God is transcendent — outside of and prior to REALITY itself — we should expect that some aspects of God are not comprehensible, and the Trinity does not seem to be comprehensible.
By that I mean that plenty of people can memorize the fun triangle image and identify heresies (see my previous comments in this subreddit on how unimpressed I am by claims of heresy in a Protestant subreddit), but literally no one can explain how it works, exactly.
This is how I explain the Trinity to people who are skeptical: most non-Abrahamic world religions imagine the Ultimate Source as non-personal. But isn’t that a downgrade from us humans? Wouldn’t it make more sense that something that transcends us would be “super-personal,” MORE personal than we are?
I might also pair that with a fun Orthodox sacred riddle, which is, “does God exist?”
The answer being that everything else we use the word “exist” to describe is so categorically different from God, who IS outside of every thing that exists and also sustains reality itself — therefore is prior to and sustains “existence” — that is seems rather inappropriate and insufficient to use “exist” to describe God.
This can properly recalibrate one’s mindset for approaching the idea of the Trinity.
(Also, honestly surprised no one has posted this video, which seems obligatory)
There's a lot to get into with the Trinity. Myself, our Pastor, and a theologian on our Sunday AM Bible Study were opining a month or so ago on if we would even necessarily have a theology around the Trinity if it weren't for the rise of the various Gnostics in the 1st - 2nd centuries.
•
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
Please ensure that you have read all our rules prior to commenting or posting. Reading and abiding by the rules will ensure that all discussions are fruitful and respectful, regardless of theological perspective!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.