Another Look at the Trinity

[Cal]

I wanted to share some more insights I've gotten into the Trinity. In particular, this insight is the best idea I've heard of how God can be three, yet one. Thanks to Jonathan Edwards, John Piper and C.S Lewis for some of the ideas here. Edwards, particularly, expounded on this here.

Note: I realize that this is speculation to some extent. The Bible reveals really no more than the following:

God is Three Persons.
All Three are God.
There is one God.

Yet, it is not unreasonable to want to have some understanding of how this can be and what it means. I thinks Edwards was onto something.


In the Beginning there was God. One God. This God is perfect. He knows he's perfect, and he delights in his perfection. In short, God delights in and loves himself completely and perfectly. God has a perfect relationship with himself, and he sees himself completely and perfectly. This view of himself is his self-image. His self-image is so complete and perfect it is another Person in God. This Self-image God has of himself is God the Son. He is the image of the invisible God.

This is why you can't see God the Father. Because he is God in himself. In order to see him you must, by definition, see God as he sees himself, because that is all he can express.

God the Father and God the Son love each other completely. This love flowing between them is so real, so perfect, that it is also another Person. This is God the Holy Spirit. God the Spirit is the love relationship between the Father and the Son.

So God the Father is God in himself, God the Son is God's idea or view of himself, and God the Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son.

One God. Three Persons. In perfection forever.

Not convinced? Just think of yourself. You have you in yourself, and you have the you which you can objectively observe and have a relationship with, even talk to--your self-image. Are these two or one? On the one hand they are definitely one. But on the other hand, how can you have a relationship with yourself if there is not, in some sense, two? Further, the relationship you have with yourself is in some sense a third entity, and yet it is also you.

This a faint shadow of God, but it does give, I believe, some idea of what goes on in the Godhead.

Now, for me, this view of the Trinity gives better insight into how the one can be three and the three can be one than I've ever heard. Yet it is not modalism. Modalism says that each person is a role God plays (it also says that the roles do not co-exist.) However, Self, Self-image and Relationship between Self and Self-image are more that just roles. They are intrinsic hypostases that always exist--must exist--in sentient persons.

Again, we experience a faint shadow of this reality in ourselves. Do you ever talk to yourself? We all do, at least in thoughts. Who are you talking to and why do you do you need to talk to yourself? Who is talking and who is listening? Are they one or two? You have to say both. You know you are one person, and yet you must in some sense be two, or you wouldn't need to have a relationship with yourself.

So besides you and your self image, there is the relationship you have with yourself. This the "flow" of life and love, if you are healthy, between you and yourself. Or it can be a flow of loathing and mistreatment if you are not healthy. In God's case this flow is completely loving and healthy. It is the communication of life and love between God and Himself, the Father and the Son. This is why fellowship is "of the Spirit."

This also shows why the Spirit never "bears witness of himself" but always points to the others. The relationship between persons exists for the persons, not for itself. Likewise the Spirit. He is reality of the Father and the Son, yet he is not about himself, but them. This also gives a clue as to why neither the Father nor the Son ever say they love the Spirit. Although they surely do, they surely appreciate their relationship as a thing in itself, like most people in love they are more interested in talking directly about their love for each other.


So, from this we can see that Lee had something of a point when he said "the Son is the Father" and "The Son is the Spirit." And yet you can also see why pushing that too far or taking it too directly eliminates the relationship between the two. You are in a sense your self-image. Yet, the two continue to co-exist and continue to have a relationship. It is a built-in reality of sentience.

[OBW]

I'm convinced that this kind of analysis is just as faulty as the "three persons with one essence" analysis. It looks at it form one angle.

If three persons is the starting point, the connection is something short of literally one. If a single God is the starting point, you end out short of the full recognition of the three that scripture provides.

It is a problem of understanding. And we don't. Unless one of the shorthand versions is simply correct (and the verses that it doesn't explain are ignored), reality is not fully describable with human experience. We can separately describe parts. And once we have those parts, we can fashion ourselves a doctrine. But it can only get sketchy because we understand some of the different parts as (at least) sort of contradictory, therefore the whole as described is problematic.

I realize that it is not this simple, but the God described in the opening post could not declare that only the Father knows something because the Three are too entirely one to really be enough Three to get there. But then going to the "persons sharing essence" argument has its problems.

The better answer is to recognize One God who is Three. Appreciate the leading and filling of the Spirit, the sacrifice of the Son, and the headship of the Father. (Don't bother suggesting what I forgot. We all forgot more than we remembered. These are just examples.) The revelation of the specific things is meaningful in an important way while figuring out how it all fits together is not. That is the reason that there is no doctrine of the Trinity in scripture. We can argue that it is there — just between the lines. But just like the "ground," it isn't really.

It is much more important to believe in the sacrifice of the Son, obey his teachings (as they lead to righteousness that is demanded by the Father), relying on the leading and filling of the Spirit to accomplish this. Understanding it is not needed for action. How did the Jordan stop flowing and become dry for the crossing? Is there some natural explanation? Doesn't matter, especially if you are one of the group that is about to cross. You just obey and cross. God did it. Did he use some natural phenomenon or break the laws of physics? Doesn't matter.

We are trapped in a mindset that requires completely logical explanations or we cannot continue. There is mystery in God that is not revealed. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we can get back to the parts that are not mysterious. And there are a lot of them.

Funny now we manage to turn the mystery into science and then ignore the literal as metaphor and "OT law."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not convinced? Just think of yourself. You have you in yourself, and you have the you which you can objectively observe and have a relationship with, even talk to--your self-image. Are these two or one? On the one hand they are definitely one. But on the other hand, how can you have a relationship with yourself if there is not, in some sense, two? Further, the relationship you have with yourself is in some sense a third entity, and yet it is also you.

. . .

Again, we experience a faint shadow of this reality in ourselves. Do you ever talk to yourself? We all do, at least in thoughts. Who are you talking to and why do you do you need to talk to yourself? Who is talking and who is listening?

The fact that I think about myself or become engaged in thoughts requiring more than "I already know the answer to that" thinking does not establish more than one person living in this sack of skin. Even those special persons who have voices in their heads spurring them on are still just one person.

Arguing with yourself just proves that you are aware that you have not figured something out or have not made up your mind. Otherwise, no argument.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm convinced that this kind of analysis is just as faulty as the "three persons with one essence" analysis. It looks at it form one angle.

Come on, OBW. Surely you didn't come to that conclusion in the short time since I posted this. Give yourself some time to ruminate before becoming dismissive.

And please speak for yourself about being "trapped in a mindset." I'm trying to get out of the trapped mindset. Forgive me for thinking outside the box.

Obviously, as you say, it's not this simple. Nothing about God is really "simple." But I've sneaking sensation this picture is more on track than most pictures we've tried to paint. Including the unhelpful "it's a mystery" picture. There are too many parallels.

Explain to my why the Spirit exists? What purpose does he serve in the Trinity itself? Why does the Bible say the Father and the Son love each other but never includes the Spirit in this relationship? Could it be because he is the relationship?

You really can't explain the point of the Trinity. There is either Lee's explanation, or this one or some other. But simply saying one-three doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.


A few other things about the picture I painted:

It is consistent with "the Son doing only what he sees the Father do."

It is consistent with "the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son."

It tells me I'm more in the image of God than I thought I was.

[Cal]

It's also consistent with each being God, each being the whole God, yet each not being the other (directly.)

It's also consistent with the orthodox descriptions of the Trinity which explain the distinctions between the Three being altogether a matter of how they relate to each other.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

The fact that I think about myself or become engaged in thoughts requiring more than "I already know the answer to that" thinking does not establish more than one person living in this sack of skin. Even those special persons who have voices in their heads spurring them on are still just one person.

Arguing with yourself just proves that you are aware that you have not figured something out or have not made up your mind. Otherwise, no argument.

In the first place I never said there was more than one person living in us. I said what we experience gives us a faint idea of what is going on in God.

Read Edward's piece and Piper before throwing this out. I think it might grow on you. It is at least helpful to me. Edwards never said it explained everything, but it explains more than most explanations.

As to arguing with yourself, I never mentioned it. Whether you argue or not, you have a relationship with yourself. You can't help it. Healthy people have a loving relationship with themselves. The healthier you are the less conflict you have. But you still have a relationship.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is a problem of understanding. And we don't.

If you mean complete understanding, you are right. If you mean no understanding, again speak for yourself.

Actually, your statement is self-contradictory. Because you must have some understanding to know you have none. But if you have some, you don't have none.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

The better answer is to recognize One God who is Three. Appreciate the leading and filling of the Spirit, the sacrifice of the Son, and the headship of the Father. (Don't bother suggesting what I forgot. We all forgot more than we remembered. These are just examples.) The revelation of the specific things is meaningful in an important way while figuring out how it all fits together is not. That is the reason that there is no doctrine of the Trinity in scripture. We can argue that it is there — just between the lines. But just like the "ground," it isn't really.

I understand the "don't comment where scripture is silent" motif. At the same time, we do interpret Scripture, and this requires some guesswork. I don't think God begrudges us wondering aloud what the Trinity means. Of course, he wants us to not argue about it.

The Bible reveals that God is three and one. To say there is no doctrine of the Trinity in scripture is somewhat misleading. No orthodox theologian denies that scripture reveals Trinity. Scripture gives us some ideas of the roles of the Three. It says one is the image of the other. It shows the first two in a loving relationship, but seems to leave the third out of this relationship.

I think any thoughtful person would ask, "What does this mean?"

And since the Bible says we are in the image of God, how does that relate to this Three-One being? Are we three-one? If so, how? Body-soul-spirit? Maybe, but that's not quite satisfactory, is it? Is there another way we are three-one? Yes, self, self-image, and relationship between self and self-image. This seems to fit much better into the roles of the Trinity. In fact, the parallels are quite striking in many ways. Is that just a coincidence? If so, it's an amazing one, and so probably not.

[OBW]

I'd rather not point at things point-by-point. I took what you wrote as a synthesis of what those other guys wrote/said. What was yours and what was theirs was not evident.

And I don't simply dismiss them. But I have heard these ideas before. It did not first come to my mind when I read your post.

My starting point is not that they are simply right or wrong, or that those who discuss from the "traditional" trinitarian view are right or wrong. My starting point is that trying to understand it enough to develop such a comprehensive doctrine about it is to miss-aim in a somewhat serious way.

And while I like Lewis, and Piper (at least some of the time) (and not much opinion on Edwards), there is something about spending so much of our energies locked in discussion/debate about how to understand God that seems to be off-track.

No, you never said that it was like having two people living in one body. But if it is less than that, where are the two? Where are the three?

And at least one part of the argument put forward seemed backward. If God's image of himself is . . . let's quote that one part.

God has a perfect relationship with himself, and he sees himself completely and perfectly. This view of himself is his self-image. His self-image is so complete and perfect it is another Person in God. This Self-image God has of himself is God the Son. He is the image of the invisible God.

This is why you can't see God the Father. Because he is God in himself. In order to see him you must, by definition, see God as he sees himself, because that is all he can express.

If God as he sees himself is his self-image and that is another person that is the Son, then if you can see the Son, you can see God as he sees himself.

I have some of these kinds of discussions (not about the trinity) with my son who just graduated from DTS. He starts by assuming that I am saying that what he has learned — both over the years and in seminary — is wrong. But that is not it. What I am saying is "why is this seen as important for the average Christian to even put his mind to?" And in the end he generally agrees.

I look at the whole revelation and I see a different "purpose" than Lee did. And different than so many heavy-duty theologians see. Man created to express God. To live on earth in the same way that God is in the heavens — in love and righteousness. God did not ordain that Jews would go to synagogue to worship God every sabbath. He only required that they go to worship at set feasts. The teachings of Jesus center mostly on the living of people. There is the relationship with God — and it is enhanced by the change in covenant. But even all that Paul says about so many high and spiritual things is related to our living.

I have yet to figure out how it is that creating a "reasonable" definition of how it is that the One God is Three enhances any of these. The revelation is of the "fellowship of the Holy Spirit" and other specific items that are truly meaningful to our lives. Deciding how to describe it in human terms of "person," "essence," "unity," etc., and then creating a doctrine out of it seems like there can only be one purpose — to discover who does not agree entirely and then at least keep them at a distance or even exclude them.

That is surely what Justyn and company are doing over at the other forum. It seems that concluding that there is a different way to describe it just changes the base from which others will be judged.

Now if each of these is used as a way to describe some aspect of the relationship of God that is admitted as being beyond cohesive description and that does not preclude almost any other view as having some basis, then I can agree.

But I must admit that the "I talk to myself therefore I am two" argument just doesn't fly for me. There is nothing about by inner discussions — even when I am arguing both sides of something as I seek an answer — that just does not do it for me.

[OBW]

Let me put it another way. (And I think I can actually be brief on this one.)

Justyn wants to argue about what is the right way to understand the Trinity. The few times I have taken him on, it was not to disprove anything he believes, but to suggest that holding it the way he does is not really important. If the desire of looking at it is to show that it is even more robust and therefore impossible to reconcile in full, then I have little problem.

I'm convinced that the only importance in the various aspects of God that are revealed is that God is what those revelations say that he is. And each one is real and meaningful. But trying to stick two or more of them together to create an unrevealed truth by induction is fantasy. It could be true, but it is not revealed. We like the term "enjoy." Enjoy what is revealed. Taking it further is a little like arguing angels and pinheads (or is it pinheads and patriots?). It is beyond what is written and is, at best, speculation.

And even though these particular views espoused by Edwards, Lewis, and Piper are softer toward the kind of sameness of person that Lee sometimes spoke of, Lee clearly made gross errors in some of his use of scripture to support his positions. Doesn't make him a heretic. Just wrong. (And aren't we all on some things.)

[Cal]

OBW,

For me it seems needful to come to some kind of insight other than "there is one and there is three" because that idea is, experientially, confusing and hindering. At least to me it is.

For example, when I pray to God, which one of the Three am I praying to? When God speaks to me, which one is speaking? Some people say "Jesus told me..." others say "The Holy Spirit told me..." Which expression is more correct?

If I say I have a relationship with Jesus, and then I say I have relationship with the Holy Spirit, am I really saying the same thing?

When God calls himself "I," as he does so many times, which of the three I's is talking? There are three I's right? So when God says "I am the Lord your God," is that the Father, the Son or the Spirit talking?

The problem with traditional trinitarianism is it never attempts to answer these questions or even recognize them. It just kind of talks around them and pretends they don't exist or are not important.

Lee saw--correctly, I think--that this mental need to recognize the Three as more separate than they probably are creates a barrier to experiencing God directly. He concluded from his experience that in some way they are one, yes, Person.

But, then again, God shows us there is a rich relationship between the Father and the Son. Lee downplayed this, to a loss, I think. That's been my argument in the past and I still stand by it.

At the same time, I think it is valid to say that when the Son loves and worships the Father, it is another way of looking at God loving and worshiping himself. We might be uncomfortable with the notion of God loving and worshiping himself, but from the standpoint of the One, what else would you call it? We tend to see self-love and admiration as a failing, but the Bible shows that having a proper love and respect for yourself is healthy. So why shouldn't God love and admire himself? He is, after all, the best thing going, and he knows it.

For me, the "self, self-image, relationship between the two" model is not THE ANSWER. It is just a helpful way of looking at things which provides an intuitive view of one way the Three can be One, and yet goes beyond the loose roles and obvious errors of typical modalism.

[OBW]

I would say that it is the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Spirit that is most noteworthy about the separation. Without the simultaneous interaction of the Godhead, the idea of pure modalism becomes not so far-fetched. But this relationship denies that extreme. Yet purely Three cannot be "One God" unless it is different that what we think of as being three persons.

There is the problem with Justyn (on one side) and modalists on the other. And while Lee was really somewhere in the middle, he almost had no use for the separateness revealed, which puts his teachings in a poor light for me.

There is clearly something that our limited minds cannot put in a box of logic. There is a mystery in it. And I know that you are not one of those who tries to turn every mystery into science. I am not suggesting that there is no value in thinking about the different ways to describe the multifarious traits of a God who is above our knowledge (especially our ability to reconcile it all). But since scripture goes to no length to provide explanations for it all — just the statements that are clearly made — I am quite happy not being able to reconcile it all.

I don't need to understand everything unless it actually affects my living. We can talk all we want about, and become more in awe of God. And I do not deny that we are to do that to some degree. But I wonder if sometimes we lose some of that awe when we manage to distill him down to something we can get our minds around. Somehow, if just his love could only be described by draining the ocean for ink (as the song sort of says) when we have some idea what love is, how do we distill a Three-One into just a few paragraphs?

I do not believe that I am hiding from finding some "truth" but rather avoiding limiting the vastness of God by pigeon-holing him into something I can describe. If I can describe him then (outside of actually imparting life) I can create him. (And I would then suppose that it would be in my image.)

As someone once said, God created man in His image and we've been returning the favor ever since.

As to some of your questions, such as which "I" is the one who says "I am the Lord your God" or "I Am" I wonder if figuring it out is important. As for "I Am," We know that Jesus said it in the NT. But does that force the original statement from the bush to be the Son? The problem with figuring this kind of thing is that it takes the idea of Three and pushes it closer to the separateness of a kind of tritheism. Just the opposite of the God who views himself so thoroughly and completely that his image of himself becomes another person (as the opening post suggested).

I'm not saying any of it is wrong. But I keep looking at it and when I try to apply logic, I find impasses that cannot be ignored. Last time I mentioned the one about the image being the Son yet we cannot look upon it — but we can and many did. There is a near unity in the statements (from which of the writers I do not know) that is not actually three. Now we are looking at aspects that push toward a finding of three that are hardly related (I'm over-stating it).

It takes over the mental processes into figuring out God rather than appreciating what he clearly says he is, and doing what he says to do. And he never said to figure him out. The one place that four guys sat around and tried to figure it all out, God came along and told them they didn't have a clue. I think we are sort of in that realm here. Some things are not ours to figure out.

[OBW]

While I was writing the above, I was reminded of this little bit of new-age poetry from a certain group:

Two notes of the chord, that's our fluoroscope.
But to reach the chord is our life's hope.
And to name the chord is important to some.
So they give it a word, and the word is . . .

OK. I'm not going to post the last word, although it is only 2 letters and not 4. But some will understand it as bad anyway.

But in this context, the word is "trinity." But we can't seem to stop with naming it. We have to nuance it until we have it all figured out. We need to know if it is major or minor. If it is dominant or otherwise. If it is from a Dorian scale or Mixolidian (sp?). If there is a high 9+ added in or a suspended 4. And which instrument is playing the root. What kind of rhythm is occurring. Is it strict to a metronome or free-flowing.

Bad example. Too few variations (even if we consider jazz chords and every kind of music and instrumentation that could be brought in). And these are all discreet. If the one trumpet is playing C, it cannot also play D at the very same time. But God can. Surely as Three. But probably also as One.

You may think I'm too comfortable leaving so much to mystery. But what does it get me to define it? A disagreement with someone who can't see that particular slant. Does it actually provide any actual benefit to know? Or does it just make us feel better to think we've figured it out?

[Cal]

This is how John Piper describes the Trinity:

"In a nutshell (following Jonathan Edwards), I would describe the Trinity like this: The Father is God existing in the primal, unoriginated, most absolute manner. The Son is God eternally generated by the Father’s having a clear and distinct idea or image of himself, so much so that his image or reflection of himself is God—the Son. The Holy Spirit is God existing as the infinite Spirit of love and delight flowing eternally between the Son and the Father."

See whole article here.

I like this definition and I think it's not too much to say it can be gathered from scripture. It is not sheer speculation. We know the Father begat the Son and that the Son perfectly reflects him, and we know the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son.

The Self-Image-Relationship (SIR) picture is a picture. It doesn't explain everything, but it does fit with Piper's description, and Piper's description fits with scripture.

Lee said that God is Triune for dispensing into mankind. This unfortunately says that without man God's triune-ness has no purpose. This seems a flawed view.

God's triune-ness had meaning and purpose to himself before he ever created man. Piper's description, which I tried lamely to expound on, sums up well what it is.

[OBW]

God's Triune-ness does have meaning. And it has purpose. And I don't understand it. At least not fully. (And you aren't suggesting that you do either.)

Do you understand electricity? At some level, I do. But not entirely. Yet it is simply physics. There is this flow of electrons. And a generator is creating them. Yet if nothing is turned on, where do they go? What is flowing?

Too simple. But it provides a glimpse into the God that I believe in since he is often described in terms that are never much more than incomplete and/or not fully understood. Except when God himself is the one describing. And when he describes, he sticks to one thing at a time. He finds no need to juxtapose Three with One. There may be hints of Three when One appears to be speaking. Or Oneness (unity) when there are the Three (or any two).

But too many of these different thoughts all strung together to create a patchwork of understanding starts to sound too much like a training banner song. Or one of those metaphors that Lee milked every possible nuance out of no matter how far-fetched it may be.

Let's talk about God. Let's focus on this or that. It is even fine to note many aspects that we aren't sure how to push together into this Three-One / One-Three being(s). But when we wander into the realm of using these views to put some certainty on it, I think we are off-base. Not because we are simply wrong in conclusion, but because we are going wrong in focus.

(So. Since Piper is on the block, is God simply male, and Christianity a masculine/paternalistic religion? I don't think he was the spearhead on this, but I do think he chimed in at least a little on the topic. (Or maybe he was the center of the recent firestorm. I can't remember.) I don't really want to discuss this.)

And — as a final note — while I think that being more general and open rather than defining and closed (and I am not saying you are closed, just that more definitions too often lead that way) is part of the "more excellent way," I do see some of the kind of ways that Lee went as being far from "excellent" and even having a potential for detrimental impact on those who follow him. I fear that in our zeal to combat the anti-Modalism Gestapo from the Bereans we are too quick to gloss over the actual negative impacts of Lee's errors in teaching. It may be that some of these particular teachings were somewhat innocuous, but taken as a whole, each marginal error gave him room to get by with worse than marginal the next time. And while there is something about God to be appreciated as One, he is described almost constantly as Father, Son, and Spirit in the NT in a manner that is not simply One. So all of Lee's teachings that limit the idea of separateness lead his followers away from what scripture was actually saying. It might be harmless. But seeing the overall impact of Lee/LSM teaching on the faithful, I suggest that nothing is as harmless at it may seem.

[OBW]

Enough.

I understand you. And I think you understand me.

And we both are making worthwhile points.

And at some level, the perspectives we are coming from are a little like taking opposite sides in the Modalism/Tritheism debate. I went into this because I think that, at some level, having some kind of grasp of things is at least a little important. At the same time, it is also important to be able to let go of our need to define God so completely that he is no longer much more than super-human — hardly deity.

Some times we need to stop and analyze something to get our heads around it — at least a little. And some times we need to admit that it is an impossible task. Neither is the only way to view it.

[Cal]

I'm all for awe and wonder. And I think our wondering is okay as long as it is an sincere expression of wonder (as in, I wonder how that wonderful thing works?).

It's when we replace the object of wonder with the conclusions of our wondering that we get into trouble.

I didn't mean to suggest that I had solved the Trinity. It's just we've discussed the subject many times and the Edwards/Piper description was never posted. (Although, I have suggested, via C.S. Lewis, that the Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son.)

I just wanted readers to have the benefit of this information.

Before I really started thinking about the Trinity in depth, I could see why there was a Father, and I could sort of see why there was a Son. What I never understood was what the Spirit was for--I mean in God in eternity past before man was created. While the Father and the Son were loving each other, was he just standing around with his hand in his pockets with no point of being? Was he just hanging around until God created man so that then he could get involved with God's economy? This is what Lee suggested--that God's triune-ness was all about his economy with man.

It wasn't until I read what Lewis said about the Spirit being the relationship, the esprit de corps, of the Godhead, that He made sense to me.

This, in turn, showed me that Lee's less-than-satisfactory explanation for why God is Triune should make way for that better alternative.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

The revelation of the specific things is meaningful in an important way while figuring out how it all fits together is not. That is the reason that there is no doctrine of the Trinity in scripture. We can argue that it is there — just between the lines. But just like the "ground," it isn't really.

It is much more important to believe in the sacrifice of the Son, obey his teachings (as they lead to righteousness that is demanded by the Father), relying on the leading and filling of the Spirit to accomplish this. Understanding it is not needed for action. How did the Jordan stop flowing and become dry for the crossing? Is there some natural explanation? Doesn't matter, especially if you are one of the group that is about to cross. You just obey and cross. God did it. Did he use some natural phenomenon or break the laws of physics? Doesn't matter.

We are trapped in a mindset that requires completely logical explanations or we cannot continue. There is mystery in God that is not revealed. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we can get back to the parts that are not mysterious. And there are a lot of them.

Funny now we manage to turn the mystery into science and then ignore the literal as metaphor and "OT law."

OBW: "How did the Jordan stop flowing . . . doesn't matter" What does the Bible say about this. Let's read Psalm 114.

1 When Israel went forth out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language;

2 Judah became his sanctuary, Israel his dominion.

3 The sea saw it, and fled; Jordan was driven back.

4 The mountains skipped like rams, the little hills like young sheep.

5 What aileth thee, O thou sea, that thou fleest? thou Jordan, that thou turnest back?

6 Ye mountains, that ye skip like rams; ye little hills, like young sheep?

7 Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob;

8 Which turned the rock into a pool of water, the flint into a fountain of waters.

According to Psalm 114, the "presence of the LORD " made the Jordan turn back. Actually the word for 'presence' in Hebrew is 'faces'; paw-neem.

The "angels of the face" go before the Lord, and the mountains melt like wax before Him. (Psa 97:5). Mountains tremble, water pours forth from the flinty rock, the sea becomes as dry land. Etc etc. Thorn bushes burst into flame without being consumed (Exod 3:1-3), donkeys speak(Num 22:25-28), the surface of the pool of Bethesda begins to ripple(John 5:4). Etc etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_the_Presence

Understanding the mechanism of the Lord's operation* allows us to co-operate with Him. Here's an example, from Matthew 8:8

The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed.

The centurion knew that he didn't deserve to have Jesus under his roof, but he also knew that he didn't need to have Jesus under his roof. Jesus could just speak a word and his servant would be healed.

Note that in the case of Jairus' daughter, Jesus did have to come under the roof; He had to expel the flute players, deal with the laughter of the derisive ones etc. Only then could he save the girl. The centurion's understanding of the dynamics of the situation allowed him to avoid such ignominy of Jesus' further travel and inconvenience. When Jesus heard, He marveled at his understanding, said, "Let it be done", turned on His heel, and went off (Matt 8:10-13).

The servant was healed without the need for the extra time, effort and struggle, because of the understanding of the centurion. The centurion experientially knew how it all went down: "I also am a man under authority" and "I also have servants under me" etc. Nothing of the Trinity here. Merely God (although not stated, but implied: the centurion was also a man under the authority [of Caesar]), and His emissaries, or agents. He knew how things worked, and because of this and his good heart (obedience) he was able to cooperate effectively with Jesus.

If you look at the stories of Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:21-43) and the healing of the centurion's servant, they're quite different in tenor. One of the recipients had more understanding, and was able to cooperate seamlessly with the Father's will. The other healing work of Jesus is accomplished only through a good deal of fuss and muss. Shouting, mocking, arguing, expelling people from the house and so forth.

Psalm 32:9 Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.

*Actually, 'understanding' God's operation is perhaps a bit optimistic. God is, after all, ineffable. 'Beginning to understand' would be better phrased. At least, don't be dismissive, or pretend that it has nothing to do with you. God is your Father, after all; aren't you a bit curious about what goes on, in His house? Jesus has prepared a place there, for you. Curious, at all? Interested? Good.

[OBW]

aron,

It was not clear where you were going with that last post. I will start by saying that everything you said it true.

But I am not sure how it interacts with what I was saying.

For example, you quoted Psalm 32:9. Based on this one verse alone, there is an unclear meaning. It could be construed to indicate that we need to know everything. But there is a context. Verse 8 says:

I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my loving eye on you.

It did not say "I will instruct you in the mysteries of God." Instead it was "in the way you should go."

In my life, that would mean "I will instruct you in how you should live. How you should act." I don't need to understand the Trinity to gain that instruction. If I take the leadership of the one I believe (Christ) and the help of the Holy Spirit, together with the instruction provided in the scripture, I should come to understand "the way [I] should go."

It does help to know what the scripture actually says. And it says many things concerning our lives. And concerning Christ. And concerning the Spirit. Each of those is helpful. Devising a construct of the interworking of the Father, Son and Spirit that is more than what is revealed is hardly "profitable for teaching." It doesn't help me in the way I should go. Rather it sends me to "things I should know that do not actually affect the way I should go."

Doesn't mean that the devised understanding is wrong. But it does me no functional good (unless my goal in life is to devise ways to exclude people from my tight-knight fellowship).

We probably are not at odds here. I just couldn't tell what it was about my post that lead to this one.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

aron,

It was not clear where you were going with that last post. I will start by saying that everything you said it true.

But I am not sure how it interacts with what I was saying.

. . . We probably are not at odds here. I just couldn't tell what it was about my post that lead to this one.

The mention of the mechanism of the Jordan River standing still led to my highly subjective riff on how the writers and speakers in the NT, or Second Temple Era, might have understood this kind of thing. If at all.

Of course we don't know, besides what we have on paper. We know it says, to love one another, forgive one another, receive one another in Jesus' name, etc. But the invisible world behind the loving and forgiving and receiving isn't laid out in the kind of systematic detail most of us would prefer. And running too far afield with that doesn't promise blessing at all, but distraction and error.

I know. Yet I like thinking about such things.

For some reason the NT doesn't talk much at all about the Trinity. I can think of maybe 2 verses that present some kind of trinitarian construct. Dozens which don't lean towards trinitarian constructs, but should if it were so conceptually foundational. Were it so then one presumes it would have been made explicit.

Instead, I see fascinating glimpses into the ideational world of the spirit. "I also have servants under me .. .. ... You just speak a word and my servant will be healed". Where did the centurion get such a view?

Impossible to reconstruct, I know. No verses cited; nothing supporting, merely an event, duly recorded. It looks like a purely logical statement. "I also am a man under authority..." If the Trinity is void of explicit support, this "spooky action from a distance" (as always, thx to Al Einstein for that) more so. But I just like thinking about such things.

Surely the centurion had a thought-world behind his statements. And Jesus complied fully with it. But beyond that, really, we cannot claim to have laid hold. I just think it's interesting, is all.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Surely the centurion had a thought-world behind his statements. And Jesus complied fully with it. .

Jesus complied fully with the centurion's thoughts as they were related to Jesus, as they pertained to the situation at hand. "Just speak a word and my servant will be healed."

But there is danger in reading too much into the bare statements. We assume there was a coherent thought world, waiting to be fleshed out, had the centurion ever done so. But he didn't. And Jesus would probably approve of some, and reject or modify some. So what the centurion thought beyond the bare words of the story is essentially moot.

However, it might be worth considering thought-worlds, theologies, and theories of God as they unfold in scripture, and in subsequent commentaries by the Fathers, and others. Because this long train of socialization largely frames our own thought-worlds, which we invest with emotional meaning and then live out.

First, I daresay few had our resources, to systematically put it all together like Augustine, Calvin, Darby, and then Nee and Lee (or whomever) tried to do. The Second Temple Period, during which the NT was being experienced and composed, was a time when the actual sacred texts were scarce, and information (i.e. 'what is') flowed through populations and to individuals via oral transmission. And oral transmission brings distortion. People say this, people say that. Opinion and fact are so freely mixed that where one leaves off and the other begins is unknowable. There was no monolithic repository of orthodoxy. Pharisee and Sadducee squabbled and split. The Essene packed up his parchments and headed into the desert.

Jesus asked, "What do people say" and the disciples replied, "Some say this, some say that..." (Matt 16:13,14). Yet even when Peter channeled truth, and received pure revelation from the Father in heaven, it clearly emerged as an admixture of revelation and erroneous speculation. Jesus was indeed the Christ, the Son of the Living Eternal God (v. 16), but Peter's "Christ" was supposed to ride into Jerusalem on a big horse and knock off Herod, Pilate, and the rest. No shameful death, here!! Jesus was going to restore the True Kingdom to Israel. For corroboration see e.g. Jesus' entry into Jerusalem in Matt 21:9 and Luke 19:37-38; also the question posed in Acts 1:6, "Are you at this time restoring the Kingdom to Israel?"

Obviously the gospel disciples and companions didn't get the suffering, and the entering into glory. See Jesus explaining His mission, post-resurrection: "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter His glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.(Luke 24:27,28). Before they got it, Jesus had to explain it.

We don't know how little or much the centurion knew in the gospel scene as portrayed to us, and how much it corresponded to "reality as it existed" at that moment. But we do know that people (including the centurion) attempted to co-operate with the world as it was presented to them, and this presentation importantly includes God's revelation of Himself in scripture, and His revelation of His Beloved Son, and the subsequent narrative of the Son's arrival and declaration of the Father in Heaven (i.e. the four gospel accounts).

And thus it has arrived to us. We have the scriptures, the various nearby texts to add meaning, we have the epistles and the Fathers and subsequent church history.

Certainly at the NT composition level there wasn't any widespread concept of Trinity, else it would have been explicitly stated. It wasn't baldly assumed by the authors and readers; these were "people of the Book" and if it wasn't written in the Book it didn't exist. Certainly a Three-in-One God would need some fairly clear statement.(and when they tried, as in the "Comma Johanneum" it was struck out).

Regarding Igzy's thought-world overlay of the Trinity being "Self-image" and "relations", it isn't disprovably wrong but really isn't any more attractive to me than any of 25 other possible overlays. My own, of which I'm obviously partial, is quite different, and I've gone on at length elsewhere. Image and relations are included, but they don't mean a Three-One God. My own son is my "spitting image" but he is not me nor I him; my father and I love each other but such relations don't mean that I'm my father.

Suffice it to say that each of us is responsible for our own vision, and, especially, our response, consistently played out each day, to that vision. Paul said, "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision". Certainly we all want to say that.

And the reason that I began this riff was because OBW wrote, "Why did the Jordan stand still . . . doesn't matter", yet my vision is at least partly subjectively framed by Psalm 114, so I raised my virtual hand and said, "not so fast".

But again, as we all know, the truth is not merely in dialectics but in living. And typing on a keypad doesn't equal living. I get that.

[aron]

Here's a link to David Canfield's site.

http://thechristianfaith.org/

Notice the schematic. He assumes a trinity. He doesn't state it but includes it as a foundational aspect of his schematic. The Triune God, become flesh, crucified, resurrected, ascended, and so forth. Not really wrong per se, but I could make my own schematic from my thought-worlds, based (I hope) on scripture. And that might include, importantly to me, the seven angels who stand before God. (or whatever). Because in this personalized schematic, I see the Jordan River dry up, per Psalm 114, and my own "open door to the proverbial Good Land" (perhaps) following that bare river-bed. Man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Not merely those which fit our schematics. In the text, the Earth trembles before the "Paw-neem" of God. Or whatever.

So why am I critiquing the Canfield thought-world, or Igzy's, or the Standard Model? Because today the gospel has typically been rendered as such minimal, logical schematics, which don't knock people down off of their high horses. It instead becomes our own high horse, our own thought-cage. And I don't like that. I want to re-create the mystery of discovery, while yet within bounds of what we call 'scripture'. So I look, turn, puzzle, and ponder. As I said earlier, I think it's interesting, is all.

[OBW]

I know that this will rub some people the wrong way, but the more I see statements like Paul made about the "wonderful" this and the "glorious" that, then compare that to all the other writings, I have come to the conclusion that we don't understand what he is talking about. Everything Paul said was true. But I have a hard time believing that he said them so that we would pursue "wonderful" and "glorious" things apart from our daily living as believers in Christ.

Paul made many spiritual statements in his letters. But he didn't often (if at all) write them as the goal of our living, but as the underpinnings — the reasons — that we do what we do. While there may be some truth to the idea that the little passage in Galatians could mean "am continually being" crucified with Christ, Paul didn't supply it as a path through which you had to go to then behave in the manner that he was leading the Galatian believers toward. Instead, it was the reason that they should do it.

Now.

And he didn't seen to be suggesting that they should start turning his comments into uber-spiritual catchphrases as they reject the idea of "just do it."

Seems that being led in the paths of righteousness stands above being led in the paths of high worship meetings. When I look at the scripture in an overview, I see much more about our living. Even in the lengthy descriptions of all the sacrifices in Leviticus. For the most part, those were about repentance. And not just one kind of generic sacrifice for every kind of repentance. There were details. For this you do A, B and C. For that, you do A, D and G. And so on.

And where is the repentance in the LRC about much of anything? I heard a repentance for wasting the first half of a prayer meeting. (really deep repentance)

And I can't say that there is a lot of ongoing repentance in Evangelicalism. Instead we just claim God's grace and move on. (It is there, and Paul admitted we could do that. But he said it was not the right thing to do.)

I have no desire to go to a Catholic church so I can join in the Kyrie. But at least they provide the opportunity every time they meet.

I know that this seems far from the whole Trinity topic. But it is actually very relevant. The point is, as I mentioned in my last post (and others before it here and other threads), that the Trinity as a subject to study and haggle about is essentially useless because it has no value to my living. God the Father, Son, and Spirit have much value to my living. But the doctrinal construct of the Trinity, as accurate or off as it may be, is irrelevant. I agree that they are simultaneous and separate. And also they are somehow completely One, even stated as One God. How that is achieved is a mystery. It does me no good to try to figure it out.

I am not suggesting the dismissal of this thread. Rather I am suggesting a solution that does not need an answer to the question of how it is that God is both One and Three. He is and that should be sufficient. I'm not even sure that it is completely important that modalism be entirely rebuffed as some kind of damnable heresy. I don't buy it. But I am not sure that it creates some kind of "another Christ." Surely at the "average Joe" level of participation in the church of Christ (as opposed to the Church of Christ) we will always have variations in understanding about things. Some of them in ways that sound the same but are actually different, and others that sound different but are more nearly the same.

Having said that, I have a hard time with Lee on this subject because when you get past the doctrinal statements (that are mostly generic orthodoxy), he starts to dismiss the relevance of the Three. They just become God Stew. Not quite damnable. But not orthodox in the truest sense of the word.

And if that was all, I might let it slide. But it is just the tip of an iceberg.

[Cal]

But again, as we all know, the truth is not merely in dialectics but in living. And typing on a keypad doesn't equal living. I get that.

This is why I said elsewhere that at this stage of my life I'd trade a whole LSM library for a copy of The Practice of the Presence of God, by Brother Lawrence.

I've changed some since I started this thread. Although I suspect there is some validity to the Trinity model I shared, the bottom line is the Bible doesn't seek to make us clear about it, so it's just speculation. In some way God is three, in some way the three are one, one God. God doesn't seem to care, at this point, that we understand how that is. Nor do I think he cares that we know how he stopped the Jordan. He can do it and did it because he's God. That's all we really need to know.

I started the thread to suggest an alternative to Lee's "progressive God" model, and to suggest how we may be more in the image of the Trinity than we thought. But apart from that, the subject is pretty useless. It certainly hasn't proven to mean much to my daily walk.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Paul made many spiritual statements in his letters. But he didn't often (if at all) write them as the goal of our living, but as the underpinnings — the reasons — that we do what we do.

I agree. The goal of our living is God. The reason for our living is God. The motivation for our living is God. The reward of our living is God.

This is what Brother Lawrence saw.

God is glorious. But we don't love him because of the glory he allows us to bask in, we love him because he is Himself.

Of course, obeying God is the primary way we show our love for him ("If you love me you will keep my commandments"). But we cannot truly keep his commandments apart from an intimate, utterly dependent relationship with Him, because we cannot know what the Word truly means apart from the Holy Spirit's enlightenment. This doesn't mean the good is the enemy of the best. A moral person is better than a immoral person. But a moral person who walks in the Spirit is better than both.

But a Christian who seeks the "glorious" more than the glorious God is mis-aiming.