Comments on a Conversation about the Trinity

It’s all about ways of knowing. He’s explained his ways of knowing: reading the bible and personal revelation. You don’t accept that those actually are ways of knowing. (I don’t either.) But he does. Apparently @swamidass does too.

Yes I worry even more about that Palestinian boy with our Christian Nationalist Secretary of State Mike Pompeo giving partisan political speeches from Jerusalem. The Government of the United States and especially the US State Department must be secular and neutral on religion.

Reading the bible is a way of knowing what the bible says. It doesn’t give any knowledge of the truthfulness of what it says. Personal revelation is just Christian psychobabble and in today’s world is very dangerous to society.

Maybe you could argue with @Mark10.45 about that. I was just pointing out the issue.

Of course, it’s outside of the scope of ordinary scientific inquiry. As we’ve been discussing on the main thread, the Trinity is held de fide - by faith as dogma, not as a discovery from natural revelation. This is not an “admission” (as if I wish it were otherwise), this is something I would in fact argue in favor of - throughout history, some theologians would actually state that any attempt to argue for the truth of the Trinity from natural theology or philosophy is unorthodox. The Trinity applies to the hidden inner life of God that only God himself can reveal supernaturally directly. To attempt to argue for its truth from natural theology (as some contemporary analytic theologians do) would potentially be reducing God to the level of creature instead of respecting him as God.

Now, individual theologians (such as Bonaventure, Aquinas, etc.) have developed sophisticated analogies or arguments about the proper way of expressing the doctrine of the Trinity given these de fide commitments, and some of these do use arguments from psychology and are quasi-scientific. However, these discussions make little sense to someone who does not already come into the discussion assuming the truth of the Trinity de fide.

2 Likes

OK, at personal risk of being torn apart by the resident unbelievers…

I was also an atheist. I spent 50 years of my life rejecting the thought of God because my childhood was unreasonably abusive, I found no evidence of God because of emotional pain. I eventually reached a point that I no longer wanted to live, and God revealed Himself to me. Do I hear voices, no. Can I explain it scientifically, no. I can only say that once I was able to submit to the concept of God and started to seek the truth, I found it. The truth is that there is a loving God that connects with us in different ways (three that I know of). It is a deeply personal adventure, one that no one can experience unless they want to. This is my experience, I thought Christians were nut cases too previously. Now I am one, and I am not ashamed.

To the question of the trinity…there is no mention of the word trinity in the bible from the searches I have done. The concept is clear, but also limited to our human experience and understanding. I am not convinced that someone that rejects God will ever understand, again that is from personal experience.

5 Likes

I agree, but not just neutral. They should be for freedom of religion (and non-religion). :slight_smile:

You also accept the idea that trustworthy accounts are a way of knowing things. You just don’t believe Scripture is trustworthy that way. And that’s okay :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Sure. But accounts are trustworthy to the extent that they can be checked against empirical data (and pass the check). One may also provisionally trust accounts related to those that have passed tests. But that isn’t the justification for trusting the biblical accounts; those are held through faith and in the absence of any tests.

1 Like

Except I don’t mean faith as “belief without evidence or tests”…

2 Likes

You’re speaking like a Catholic! :joy:

2 Likes

To me, as a sola-scriptura Calvinist, the let’s-call-it orthodox view of the Trinity, as expressed in the historic creeds, establishes something of a generous limit to Luther’s (I’ll give him credit, not sure if that is historically accurate) concept of sola-scriptura plus what can be derived from “good and faithful consequences.”

I think we have used “good and faithful consequences” a bit like the courts have used the Commerce Clause.

I do not really see how to escape that we Prots, no matter how reformed, have a “sacred tradition” like our RC friends. Not as extensive, but we have one. At a bare minimum if as a Protestant you affirm that the 66 books in your bible all belong there and none are missing, that’s a sacred tradition, given that while scripture was inspired, the table of contents was not. It was derived.

1 Like

By the way, I always see a Trinitarian connundrum in this famous passage:

30 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone . (Mark 13:30-32, NASB)

Whatever this is referring to (I don’t think it is the Second coming, but that doesn’t matter for this purpose) the fact that Jesus doesn’t know is usually attributed to temporary and voluntary limits related to the Incarnation. But why doesn’t the Holy Spirit know?

If you have a good answer for this, I’d like to hear it.

Great. Then why do you believe i the authority of scripture? How have you tested its claims? Specifically, why do you believe that Adam and Eve existed?

I am all for your freedom of religion as long as you are for my freedom FROM religion.

Didn’t I just write freedom for non-religion? :slight_smile:

The foundational epistemology traces through the Resurrection:

http://www.veritas.org/evidence-easter-scientists-list/

Why do you think I believe Adam and Eve existed? I don’t usually reveal my personal beliefs about them.

No it is not just about the freedom to be non-religious, it is about to be freedom FROM religious dogma, doctrine, and rules that creep into our laws and government.

So freedom from that pesky idea of universal human rights and dignity? :slight_smile:

That’s only about the resurrection, as far as I can see, and has nothing to say about any other aspects of scripture. We could argue about whether your evidence is credible, but even if it is, how does it validate anything other than some portions of the gospels?

Further, if this is an example of faith, it seems to be based on examination of physical evidence, as in science, not another way of knowing. (Again, we could argue over whether your examination is well-conducted, but perhaps another time.)

I thought that might be your answer. So in fact you don’t trust in scripture as a way of knowing, or at least are unwilling to say that you do.

I think death in general, including the second coming. The fig tree speaks of knowing the season, when the time is ripe for the second coming (or death) and the rest of 13 is to be prepared spiritually for either. (Just my interpretation)

In my opinion, the Holy Spirit is a conduit, a communication channel, a “helper” sent by Jesus to connect our individual spirits to God. The Old Testament implies that the presence of God is too intense for humans, so the function of the Spirit is to bridge the gap. The same could be said for Jesus, with some added functionality in judgment. Neither act on their own authority, they do what the Father commands, but that does not mean they are not one with Him.

John 16:13 - However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

John 12:48-50 - He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”