Bloggin' the 28: Applying Trinity to human relationships

By Johnny Ramirez-Johnson

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.) (Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, Belief No. 2, The Trinity

Introduction

The “Statue of the Three Lies”

  Have you ever drawn God? If you were assigned the task of doing so where will you go for inspiration? At Harvard University yard, where the oldest buildings remain, in front of the old water pump, there is a statue that we Harvardites call, “the statue of the three lies.” You see the statue is supposed to be a representation of young John Harvard, but it is not. That is the first lie, the story says that Mr. Daniel Chester French, a sculptor was contracted by the university administration to produce a statue of the greatest benefactor they ever had.

  In fact Rev. John Harvard, an Englishman, was the first person to endow the university with half of his estate (£779) his large library (400 volumes of which only one survives today) all for the purpose of training ministers. In return the university was named after him and a bigger that life statue was to be erected. But when Mr. French, the sculptor, arrived there was no painting or any other drawing of John Harvard. They expected him to do a statue of a dead man with nothing to go by. The solution was to use a student as a model. As a result of this unique assignment “the Statue of the Three Lies” was erected. The nature of the other two lies will not be covered in this presentation, you will have to visit Harvard’s yard and take a tour with a Harvardite.

  No Human Has Ever Seen God
When I selected the assignment to write about the Trinity I felt like Mr. French, the sculptor, I asked myself where can I find an image of the Godhead? Where can I get inspiration to draw with words an accurate description of God? You see there are no pictures, paintings, diagrams, or even internet sites to visit where I can find a reliable photo album of the Godhead family, the Trinity. Therefore I decided to search the Bible. John the beloved apostle who had the privilege to lay his head on the body of Jesus the carpenter from Nazareth and who recognized Jesus as the eternal “logos” makes it plain and clear. 1 John 4:12 “No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.”¹ No human has ever seen the Trinity.
The Example of Moses
Once Moses asked God to show him what could not be revealed, the words spoken are self-explanatory. Exodus 33:18-20 “Then Moses said, ‘Now show me your glory.’ And the LORD said, ‘I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,’ he said, ‘you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.’”
Describing God’s Back and Goodness
On this presentation I will examine methodically some of the biblical attempts to describe who the Trinity is and what does this doctrine or belief has to do with our daily experiences. In doing so I will avoid the task that was clearly declared as impossible when Moses requested seen God. I will not seek to describe God’s face, I will limit myself to God’s back and God’s goodness (Exodus 33:18-23). Like Mr. French, if we try to describe how God looks like we will create a false image, another statue of three lies. We are wise to deal with God’s back and goodness, there is plenty to see from God’s backside!
Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity
Since the term Trinity has theological rather than biblical origins I cannot quote a biblical text to discuss its origins. It is in the history of the Christian church that we find its roots. It is in the context of Christian apologetics that we find its inception. Only because some perceived attack was received were the early Fathers of the church interested in defining many of the Christian doctrines, including the Trinity. The Early Fathers of the church had a lot to say about this topic. The church Patriarchs had lots of doctrinal and political struggles of which they left behind numerous written witnesses.
Theophilus of Antioch circa 180 AD
Imitating Luke (see Luke 1:3) Theophilus of Antioch wrote three books to proclaim the risen Savior to his friend Autolycus. The first book deals with God, the second with a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, and the third book with the superiority of the Christian faith. In his first book we have the first mention of the doctrine of the Trinity (Gonzalez, 1970:117). In describing what he called the Trinity Theophilus took a leap beyond the biblical data and introduced a theological term that from then on defined the Christian God. It was not without many conflicts that this theological view of God was accepted and defined by the Christian community.
Cyril of Alexandria circa 430 AD
The “Seal of the Fathers”, Cyril of Alexandria who died about 444 AD has been credited as “the one who finally fixed the true doctrine of the Trinity” (Krüger, 1977:333). Cyril was instrumental in dealing with Nestorius who rejected the “bearer of God” title applied to Mary, the mother of Jesus. In opposing the title given to Mary, Nestorius of Antioch set himself up against more powerful Patriarchs, Cyril of Alexandria whose parish had a significant amount of financial resources and political influence (more than often these two go together) and Rome. Cyril took it upon himself to destroy Nestorius and so he did. Forcing him to sign a most humiliating document, it was in this letter and the appendix of “Heretical Statements” that we find the declarations defining the doctrine of the Trinity.
Unitarianism and Patripassianism
Nestorius was neither the first nor the most significant opponent of the prevalent Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Many others opposed various aspects of the doctrine, most significantly the divinity of Jesus and the nature of the Holy Spirit. There are many ways of classifying all these controversies. I will limit myself to mentioning two classifications of the Trinity that depart from the prevalent Christian view: Unitarianism and Patripassianism. Unitarianism declares the complete union of the Godhead rejecting the notion that there are three “persons” in the Godhead. Tertulian first used the notion of “persona” to describe the Trinity circa 175 AD. The Unitarian doctrine views the Holy Spirit as an attribute of the Father and views the Son as a created being (see McClintock & Strong, 1970:551-556).
Patripassianism declares that the Father suffered and was given in sacrifice alongside with Jesus (the term literally means ‘the passion of the Father’). Patripassianism as well as Unitarianism and all the other views on the Trinity are based on some passages from the Bible. A detailed discussion of these goes beyond the scope of this paper. The main points to ponder are summarized in three questions: Is God an immutable, far away, all knowing, and all encompassing, far from human frailty God? Is the Trinity a mutable one, each member having a unique opinion and each member learning from each other? Is the Trinity in “need” of companionship and enjoys the pleasures of intimacy with humans and between themselves?
Seven years away from the of the start of the third millennia and many debates, church councils, political maneuvering, and Bible studies after Theophilus and Cyril wrote their theologies I have the task of explaining in a Christ center way the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity today.
Disclaimer
We All Speak From Our Vantage Points
As expressed by our own Adventist Southern Californian theologian Richard Rice, although “theology seeks to express the faith of a religious community, rather than someone’s private opinions, it inevitably reflects the viewpoint of its author” (1985:xvii). Following Rice, I do not view this perspective as a weakness but as strength, how else can we learn about the unseen God if not by the reflections of humans like you and me? This analysis is a personal reflection on the meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity from the perspective of the human need for relationships.
I must say a word or two about who I am. I am a male, middle class mestizo who lives in Colton, California. I am a Harvard educated ordained minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I have lived among very orthodox people who view the Bible as having an answer to every specific question. And I have also lived among those who view the Bible as a book to be interpreted in light of today’s realities. I can feel equally comfortable among both groups. It will be from this perspective that I will talk to you. Like Theophilus, Cyril, and all writers on this internet Campmeeting series who wrote before me and all those who will write after me, we can only reflect and think within the framework of our experience, one perspective at a time.
We Need Each Other
The first point that I wish to make in regards the doctrine in consideration is the fact that our God is a Trinitarian one. Before we make up our minds in regards to what is true we ought to listen to at least three perspectives from three different people, like the Godhead we all can benefit from diversity of perspectives. Diversity of opinions begins with God. I will latter explain myself.
Ellen G. White Advises Silence
Ellen G. White declares that silence is golden when trying to define who the Holy Spirit is, she says.

  It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, “the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.” It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, “He shall not speak of Himself.” John 15:26; 16:13. The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden (White, 1911:51-52).

  Her advice is to study the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit. In this paper I will concentrate on the nature of the relationship of the Trinity with us and what can we learn to help us understand God’s character and love for us humans. Instead of building a statue of the Trinity or the so-called logical attributes thereof, I wish to describe the goodness of God (see Exodus 33:18-20) as it relates to us. I will describe God’s backside--which has been revealed, not God’s face--which has not been seen.
Biblical Accounts
Genesis 1 and 2
Genesis 1:26-27 no uncertain ways that there is an authoritative, legitimate, image of the Trinity on earth. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:26-27 was mentioned by all the theologians I read (about twenty), they all discussed it from the standpoint that it declares a plurality in God, therefore the doctrine of the Trinity can be documented with this and many other texts. This is completely and absolutely true. The God of Genesis is plural, the Creator of Genesis consulted in a heavenly council before creating our first parents.
I have no idea of what when on in their dialogue, what I know for certain is that they came up with a design. This design is a reflection of God, the image of God. As presented by our prophetess Ellen G. there is no question about the fact that we humans, male and female, reflect God.

  There is no ground for the supposition that man was evolved by slow degrees of development from the lower forms of animal or vegetable life. . . . Man was to bear God’s image, both in outward resemblance and in character. Christ alone is ‘the express image’ (Hebrews 1:3) of the Father; but man was formed in the likeness of God. His nature was in harmony with the will of God” (White, 1958:45).

Therefore if we look at the best human traits, both in our physical “outward appearance” and psychological ways, “character,” we will find the only authorized image of the Trinity. To accomplish this task we will examine the passage in question with the question: What can we learn about the Trinity from the story of the creation of humans?
Diversity Within The Trinity
The first lesson that we must learn from Genesis 1:26-27 has to do with diversity, “male and female he created them” is what the Bible says. It was not one of them who bore the image of God it is both. When we examine the female body and compare it to the male one we can only wonder what kind of a dialogue the Trinity had when creating humans. ‘Man will have this and that organs in this and that shape, woman will have this and that features shaped in these unique ways.’

  From the biblical record we cannot ascertain whose hands got dirty with mud in the process of creating Adam, what we do know is that humans were created with a hands-on method rather than a voice-command method. Many parts of the creation account declare that God ‘spoke’ things into creation. For humans the method was hands-on, the “LORD God formed” man and woman into creation.

  It is beyond the scope of this paper to determine the nature of God’s gender qualities, though the Bible refers to God mostly with male metaphors, female ones are also used (see Rosado, 1990). It is assume by the author that God indeed has both male and female attributes; though God is neither male nor female per se. Since both males and females carry the image of God; in whatever way(s) they carry God’s image, then God is like them in those same ways (see White, 1958:45--“Man [humanity] was to bear God’s image, both in outward resemblance and in character”).
Appreciation Of Gender Differences (Diversity)

Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 explain the creation of the first man and woman. The story unfolds in steps. First man is created, then all animals are brought to him, then his need for companionship is declared. Lastly the woman is created from one of man’s rib and is brought to him. Equality is declared and companionship established.

  Genesis 2:7 “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:21-22 “So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.”

  The Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:7 “formed” is also used to describe the action of a potter shaping or forming a clay vessel into existence. God’s hands got as dirty as any potter’s hands when working with clay! What implications does the fact that both men and women represent the image of God have on the doctrine of the Trinity? Historically women have not been led to believe that they carry in their bodies as much the image of God as men do. That is why the Mexican poet Amado Nervo exhorts the female readers of his poem to esteem their bodies. Taking the risk of insulting both the individual capable of reading Amado Nervo in Spanish and those who cannot do so, I will translate a portion of his literary work entitled “Tu Cuerpo” [Your Body] dedicated to the Mexican women.

  Why would you despise your body? It is, in the first place, the marvellous temple of a hidden god. It is, at the same time, a work of art by the eternal Artisan. Study it from all vantage points. Look at its harmonious exterior; analyze its anatomy; enter deeply into the tortuous mystery of its cells; all in it is beauty, is strength, is grace, is an enigma. God personally modeled its shape (Nervo, 1988:171).

  As every female reader examines her body in front of a mirror, as every female reader learns about the marvelous physiology of her beautifully designed body, she learns about God! All female readers are designed in outward appearance in the likeness of God! This Trinitarian statement has tremendous implications for the psychological and social well being of females and males. Although we cannot answer the question if there are differences, similar to the male and female differences, in the outward appearance of the three persons of the Trinity, we do know that the Trinity choose to create us in two likeness, male and female.

  Both male and female carry God’s image and we do well in affirming the goodness of this heavenly designed diversity. Just like the male and female bodies differ in “outward appearance” and physiology, also the Trinitarian nature must reflect a like diversity. The expression of diversity in the creation of man and woman does not end with the physical realities.
Diversity Of Reasoning
Who will question the well-documented fact that women and men think in different ways? One way of understanding these different ways of thinking has to do with moral reasoning. Carol Gilligan and her colleagues have clearly documented two distinct ways of reasoning that males and females exhibit.

  By listening to girls and women resolve serious moral dilemmas in their lives, Gilligan has traced the development of a morality organized around notions of responsibility and care. This conception of morality contrasts sharply with the morality of rights described by Piaget (1965) and Kohlberg (1981, 1984), which is based on the study of the evolution of moral reasoning in boys and men. People operating within a rights morality–more commonly men–evoke the metaphor of “blind justice” and rely on abstract laws and universal principles to adjudicate disputes and conflicts between conflicting claims impersonally, impartially, and fairly. Those operating within a morality of responsibility and care–primarily women–reject the strategy of blindness and impartiality. Instead, they argue for an understanding of the context for moral choice, claiming that the needs of individuals cannot always be deduced from general rules and principles and that moral choice must also be determined inductively from the particular experiences each participant brings to the situation (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986:8).

  This observable diversity of moral reasoning between males and females enriches our understanding of God. I propose to you that God’s moral reasoning exhibit both patterns of logic. You can not help but to realize that the laws and regulations of the Hebrew Scriptures seem sometimes to be contradicted by the actions of God as presented in the stories of the ways God dealt with humans in those days. A couple of examples, from the many that can be presented, include the stories of Rahab and Ruth. The regulations and laws given by God had specific instructions of whom to exclude from the family of Israel. Prostitutes, Moabites (up to their tenth generation) as well as inhabitants from Jericho were all to be excluded. Prostitutes and people from Jericho were to be killed on the spot, you may read these exclusions in Deuteronomy 23:3-4, 17-18 and Joshua 6:17-19, but the actual treatment received by a prostitute from Jericho and a Moabite widow directly contradict the laws and regulations, you may read Joshua 6:17-19; Ruth 4:1-10; Matthew 1:5; Hebrews 11:31; and James 2:25.

  In order to learn about God’s character we need to examine the stories that deal with the morality of contextualized relationships. If we only look at the laws and the morality of retribution we will, must definitely, miss the true picture of God. Just like between male and female characters there are varied ways of approaching moral reasoning, it seems God’s reasoning follows suit.

  Unity in the Trinity

  Just as true that there is diversity both psychologically and physically between men and women it is also true that there is a lot of unity between them. The Bible declares that our first parents became one, Genesis 2:23-24. “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” The Trinity is also “one flesh.” Theologians have expressed this in so many words. The Bible expresses it with the image of marriage. It is only in the context of unity between a man and a woman in marriage that we can begin to understand the concept of the Trinity. In the logic of God as expressed in Genesis, since man and woman were created from the same essence they ought to become one in marriage. The act of getting married is described in its biological level of sexual relations. But the implications are far from only biological.

  The social implications of getting married are described in clear terms, man and woman need to separate from their parents in order to become one. The exclusive type of relationship that needs to exist within a married couple describes the character of God. God does not welcome sharing us with other gods. In fact, we are told that God is jealous, God is keeping a careful score of all our relationship and what place we give to our relationship with Him/Her. Exodus 20:3, 5 “You shall have no other gods before me. . . for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (the same idea is expressed in Exodus 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Joshua 24:19). The plural God of Genesis exist in a oneness only understood in the relationship of a man and a woman in love.

  Need Of Companionship

  The relationship of man and woman is not only outside of love, it comes out of a basic human need. The only time during the creation story that God declared that the creation act was not good was when Adam was alone. Adam’s creation was declared incomplete without a suitable, equal companion. Humans were created in a social context out of which we are incomplete.

  The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. (Genesis 2:18-20)

  Is it that God needs companionship in order to be complete? Based on what we learn from God’s image on earth and what the Bible says about God’s relationships with us, I believe God needs our companionship in order to be complete.
The Needs Of God
Isaiah 43

  This beautiful poem describes the inner feelings, desires, and logic of God (presented in the context of Israel and their present truth). As we read it together let us try to understand God’s reasoning. The God of these passages has an earnest desire for a close relationship with the people of Israel. Twice it is declared that humans were created and redeemed for God’s personal purposes (Isaiah 43:7, 25). The God of Isaiah 43 declares that the people of Israel were brought into existence for the sole purpose of proclaiming God’s name to all. Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.” Isaiah 43:20-21 “The wild animals honor me, the jackals and the owls, because I provide water in the desert and streams in the wasteland, to give drink to my people, my chosen, the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise.”

The Trinitarian God has the desire for praise and companionship. God’s love is expressed through the creative power. And the creation acts are a definition of God’s being, were God is there is life and relationships. “Every manifestation of creative power is an expression of infinite love. The sovereignty of God involves fullness of blessings to all created beings” (White, 1958:33). Praise to God is the act of sharing with God our lives and giving to God the center of our existence.

  The message of Isaiah 43 involves God’s demand for a trial. In this trial God invites all creatures to explain why (43:9) they have separated from God’s presence. God’s witnesses are the wild animals, they have always honor God. But Israel has separated herself from God and God is calling her into judgment. But the purpose is to save her, to redeem her, because God needs her.

  God Needs Israel Like A New Groom Needs His Bride

  It is not far fetched to say that God needs us in the same fashion that two loved ones need each other. We are not talking about a need for survival, we are talking about a need for pleasure and enjoyment of what is good and beautiful. Our nervous terminals and central nervous system are an image of God’s own sensory system. God is capable of joy and pleasure as much as we are capable of joy and pleasure. In fact the greatest joy and pleasure comes from sharing ourselves with our loved ones.

  In the context of a sacred bond and total commitment and trust, the newly weds are to give themselves to each other often for the first time. This giving themselves to each other is a “need” in the sense that it is the greatest usage of our capability to share and give ourselves to others. It is not that marriage is the only way of sharing; on the contrary, there are one thousand and one other ways of sharing ourselves. It is not that those who are single cannot give themselves in totality. It is that in the context of the marital sexual union the potentials for sharing soul and body are best exemplified.

  Separation Is The Greatest Pain
There is plenty of biblical data about how a married couple is supposed to share themselves with one another. We already reviewed the lessons learned from Genesis 2, a married couple needs to divorce themselves from their previously most cherished relationships and devout themselves to each other exclusively. The element of exclusivity cannot be overemphasized (Exodus 20:14, 17). Separation is the greatest enemy of a couple in love--Song of Solomon 5:6-8:

  I opened for my lover, but my lover had left; he was gone. My heart sank at his departure. I looked for him but did not find him. I called him but he did not answer. The watchmen found me as they made their rounds in the city. They beat me, they bruised me; they took away my cloak, those watchmen of the walls! O daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you-- if you find my lover, what will you tell him? Tell him I am faint with love.

  Separation is most painful when it is caused by abandonment of one spouse in favor of a third person. Just like this type of separation is the most painful, the greatest joy in marriage comes from a total commitment to one another.

  Sharing Their Bodies Is The Greatest Pleasure

  Throughout the Songs of Solomon almost all the human anatomy is described in the context of the pleasures derived in sharing with each other. A token of the anatomy of love in the context of marriage include breasts and mouth, Songs of Solomon 7:6-8.

  How beautiful you are and how pleasing, O love, with your delights! Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, “I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.” May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine. May the wine go straight to my lover, flowing gently over lips and teeth. I belong to my lover, and his desire is for me.

  According to Paul the sharing of your body in marriage is not only a pleasurable thing, it is a duty. The duty of love is to share and ownership is in the hands of your spouse--1 Corinthians 7:3-5:

  The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

  These simple rules are the key to all other relationships. If we are capable of loving our spouses in such a way that we no longer hold ownership of our bodies, then we are capable of loving others as ourselves. In learning to love in this way we learn to relate to God. The God who choose not to own his own body but gave it away for us to be saved!
Jesus And The Trinity
Jesus example of total commitment is our role model of how the Trinity loves us, and of how we ought to love one another--Philippians 2:4-8:

  Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!

  Loving Jesus and loving our closest neighbor, our spouses, go hand in hand. In order to understand the nature of the doctrine of the Trinity and its implications for us today we must do so in the context of relationships. Relationships that come out of the pleasure for companionship, not the discipline of legal requirements. Through the process of marriage I have learned many things about how to foster and how not to foster relationships. I would lie if I was to say that I am the perfect husband or that I fully understand how my wife reasons. I have learned that many times the issue is to learn to enjoy the beauty of reasoning contrary to mine. Not that I many times we argue about our mutual logics, we do so, and even enjoy the process. The point is to submit, not out of logic but out of love for the relationship. The amazing miracle is that the greatest pleasure is associated with this kind of logic!

  The logic of Jesus is the logic of equality in diversity. Treating others as equals even when we cannot always accept their logic. Jesus practiced this discipline all the way to the cross of Calvary! This discipline will bring to Jesus the greatest joy, the joy of saving us from our sins. That is why Jesus is looking forward to our reunion with him. When Jesus will be reunited with his first human creation, Adam. The joy of the reunion brings shivering sparks up and down Jesus’ spinal cord. This promise is extended to all. We all will become the bride to be reunited with the bridegroom in the joy of total union and the pleasures of marital companionship--Isaiah 62:4-5:

  No longer will they call you Deserted, or name your land Desolate. But you will be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; for the LORD will take delight in you, and your land will be married. As a young man marries a maiden, so will your sons marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you.

  God is as eager to share with us and be delighted in us as a groom over his bride. God wants to rejoice in you as much as a bridegroom wants to “rejoice over his bride.” Are we anticipating this joy by practicing on earth the joy of sharing with our spouses and neighbors? Like concentric circles our relationships are to grow, and as they grow we become more willing to submit to one another. Is there room for diversity in your life? Are you willing to submit to those you cannot understand their logic?
Conclusion
If we are to live a wholeness life we need to learn from the Trinity some key behaviors/attitudes.

  1. We do not need to be able to understand in order to believe. Just like we do not understand the logic of our spouse’s in order to always love them; we do not need to understand how the Trinity is best described in order to have a relationship with God!

  2. We have been created in God’s image and in order to fully appreciate this image we need to treat male and females as equal. Females carry God’s image as much as males do! We are both the image of God on earth!
3. Just like we have the need for companionship, God has the need for companionship. It is not a favor that God has saved us; it is because God needs us. Out of self-love God saved us!

  4. Since God needs us we can feel as partners, members of the family of God. We are not strangers receiving charity, we can provide God with what She/He needs–companionship!

  5. God will judge us based on our relationship with Her/Him. Our relationship with Her/Him is judged based on our relationship with those closer to us.

  6. God expects us to submit to one another, just like Jesus submitted because he needs us. We also need each other and we ought to submit in order to reflect the Trinity’s ways of companionship.

Are you ready to try?

Dr. Johnny Ramirez Johnson is a tenured professor in Theology, Psychology, and Culture at the School of Religion at Loma Linda University.

Comments

[Elaine]

"Genesis 1:26-27 was mentioned by all the theologians I read (about twenty), they all discussed it from the standpoint that it declares a plurality in God, therefore the doctrine of the Trinity can be documented with this and many other texts. This is completely and absolutely true. The God of Genesis is plural, the Creator of Genesis consulted in a heavenly council before creating our first parents."

Since you do not cite a text for the statement that there was a heavenly council before creating our parents, please could you do so?

The SDA belief: "There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons" is also not to be found in Scripture. The Apostle's Creed states:

"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, AND in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord."

And the earlier Nicean Creed:

We believe in ONE God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father." These earlier creeds distinctly separate God from his son, which is a VERY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP.

Where in either Scripture or the formal church creeds is there a statement other than that they are SEPARATE or that they are co-equal? Jesus is always referred to as God's Son and referred to God as his father with no mention of "Godhead" which is of much later derivation.

When one begins with an assumption of the Trinity and from there interprets it into human relationships, it is a chasm too wide to cross over. To begin with an assumptive premise, the analogy can only be an assumption without evidential biblical authority.

[Justin Lee]

This is true, the fact a Trinitarian godhead exists is questionable if we look at scripture. I'm sure the fact that there was a Jewish rabbi who called himself God's son was quite problematic for early church members in Jerusalem. However, there are things that we cannot understand. Is God one, or triune? Is God male or female or asexual?

It might be scary to cross over that chasm that has been created by mere assumptions, but everything in this world is full of assumptions. Nothing exists objectively. As Wittgenstein realized, when we try to look for that foundation where we can hang our knowledge or belief, it turns out that that foundation is being held up by the rest of the house.

Whether the Trinitarian view is in fact reality or not, I'm not sure. But demolish this theology because it's based on assumptions? I'm not sure about that either. Through further theological inquiry, biblical study, scientific falsifiability, and divine revelation we realize that God is in fact a single, asexual divine entity, then by all means let's get rid of our Trinitarian theology. But, regardless of how we view God, the challenge that Dr. Ramirez-Johnson makes to Christians still remain, how are we to relate to one another and how are we to relate to God, triune or not?

[Bill Cork]

The doctrine of the Trinity has firm Biblical roots. Jesus commands to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He prays to the Father in the Spirit; he says he and the Father are one. He says the Father will send the Spirit on the disciples in his name; he is another comforter, a teacher. Jesus breathes on the disciples in John and they receive the Spirit. The Spirit does not speak of himself, but testifies to Jesus. Jesus is the Word who was with God and through whom the Father created all.

This is the Biblical starting point--the confession and baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and the Spirit, and the relationships between these three as established in the narrative.

[Bill Cork]

I'm kind of curious how a description of the history of Trinitarian thought could discuss Cyril of Alexandria but not the Council of Nicea and the Niceno-Constantinipolitan Creed, and the precipitating controversy was that of Arius, who said the Son had a beginning.

Nestorius' accepted Orthodox Trinitarianism. His concern was over the relationship of the human and the divine. His point was that the divine and human could be separated in Jesus, so that Mary only held the humanity of Jesus, not his divinity. The Council of Chalcedon countered that in the incarnation the divine and human natures are always present, without division, without separation, without mixing, without confusion. Jesus is fully God and fully human from the moment of his conception, and thus Mary is properly called Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

We seem to have such trouble with a triune God and no trouble at all with One Nation under God made up of 50 states. Tom

[Elaine]

The conflict began in Alexandria between Arius and Athanasius in the early fourth century, resulting in Constantine's call for a church council in Nicea to settle the question.

It was the Cappadician monks who resolved the difficulty experienced by the Eastern branch of the church. As one of them, Gregory of Nyssa said, "every concept of God is a mere simulacrum, a false likeness, an idol: it could not reveal God himself. We know our God only by his operations but we do not undertake to approach his essence." This began the keynote of all future theology in the Eastern Church.

Never did Paul refer to Jesus as God; but the Son of God in its Jewish sense; he did not believe that Jesus had been the incarnation of God himself; but simply possessed God's "powers."
Because Jesus called God his "Father" it certainly implied a distinction: a distinction clearly understood by paternity, John's reference to "Logos" referred back to the beginning when God had created WISDOM, the agent of Creation. Genesis made no claim that Jesus was involved with creation.

The confusion between symbols and reality is still part of the discordant note in the Christian Church. Western Christianity would become a more talkative religion while the Greek Orthodox Church maintained that all good theology would be silent with no need to explain God's essence.

Why does the church so desperately need to set forth doctrinal dogma when there should be room left for the individual to experience the mystery of God? The Trinity is not logical nor something that can be explained. We should not be so focused on either justifying this doctrine or attempting the impossible.

[Bill Cork]

"Never did Paul refer to Jesus as God; but the Son of God in its Jewish sense; he did not believe that Jesus had been the incarnation of God himself; but simply possessed God's 'powers.'"

Not true. Philippians 2 is a key text, in which, as he does throughout his letters, Paul identifies Jesus as "Kyrios" (often citing LXX texts in which "Kyrios" is a divine appellation replacing YHWH), before whom every knee shall bow. This identification, he says, is only possible through the Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). Christ is the one (2 Tim 4:1ff) who will judge the living and the dead. Paul uses language that is part of the basis for the development of Trinitarian theology (e.g. 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:14). It is , in fact, because of Paul's high Christology that liberals usually point the finger at him as the person who, in their estimate, led Christianity astray. In fact, what Paul's Christological language shows is that the divinity of Jesus is not a late development, but is part of the very earliest layer of Christological reflection.

[Bill Cork]

As to the comments about Eastern Christian theology--a distinction is made in these theologians, as in the West, between God as he is in himself and God as he reveals himself to us. We can't know the former (what Luther called the "Deus absconditus"), but we can know the latter--that was the point of the incarnation and of revelation.

The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't say everything about God; it elucidates 1) the relations between the persons and 2) their common divine reality. It is a doctrine rooted in Scripture and God's self revelation in Christ. Eastern Christian theologians, such as the Cappadocians, stressed that the only distinction that we can make between the persons is their relations--because "omnia opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa" (i.e., all the outwardly directed actions of the Trinity are indivisible).

Eastern thought does adore the mystery--and it is this worship that determines our theological reflection. It is because Christ is worshiped, in the unity of the Father and the Holy Spirit, that he must be divine, is one of the points Athanasius made to Arius. This worship of Christ is one of the points Romans noted of the early Christians (e.g., Pliny's letter to Trajan, witnessing to the fact that Christians "sing hymns to Christ as to a God").

But this Eastern worship of the mystery is rooted firmly in the incarnation, God taking flesh, and in the Son's prayer to the Father in the Spirit. These are not human chosen metaphors, but God's self revelation.

And Johnny's point is a necessary one, and one that the Eastern theologians did discuss--a focus on the Trinitarian relations must raise the question of our relationships with one another, since we have been brought into relationship with the Triune God through baptism into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

A couple of good references (for which I can thank Rick Rice, in part, from classes 20+ years ago): Walter Kasper, THE GOD OF JESUS CHRIST; Robert Jenson, THE TRIUNE IDENTITY.

[Elaine]

Does Christ's divinity automatically make him co-equal with God? If so, how can he be "begotten" of the Father?

The Incarnation was not an original concept of the new followers of Jesus, but a gradual development of the Gospel writers, none of whom were likely even alive when he was born. Such is the manner of which myth and legends are born. Who is to say which developments are correct or inspired?

The letter to Philippi says that Christ was not equal with God, but that he could not assume it himself but was given this title only to the glory of God the Father. Nor did Peter say that Jesus was God but "was a man commended to you by God...." Jesus aslso specifically stated that the Father was greater than he.

His divinity as equal to God was not accepted, according to the Gospel writers, but is a post-canonical doctrine. Which begs the question what is the importance of the canon's being closed if much of Christian doctrines were formed by the Church Fathers during the first 400 centuries after Christ's birth and Resurrection? Are there still doctrines that may be expected even today?

[Bill Cork]

Christians hold that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Jesus said, "My father and I are one." He said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." The divinity of Christ is clearly attested throughout Scripture, and is clearly a New Testament doctrine--and the New Testament was completed within 65 years of his passion (the amount of time between Pearl Harbor and today. Not a long time at all). The letter to the Philippians does indeed assert the equality of Jesus with the Father--he just did not think it something to be grasped at, clung to, but emptied himself in the incarnation, becoming one of us.

[Johnny Ramirez-Johnson]

The Trinity is a great Christian concept that is focused on relationship. How you imagine the relationship is the key to the understanding. The most prevalent view is one that asserts the unity above the diversity of the relationship.

If unity prevails God has one mind interconnected and thus in no need of communication, dialogue or "discussions" among the members of the Trinity. If this is the case the Trinity's relationship-model and humans relationship-model have no connection whatsoever.

But if on the contrary; the Trinity needs to talk among each other and come to one mind or agreement as a matter of fact; then the creation account serves as a model of how the Trinity may communicate among themselves.

Based on the creation account I draw the conclusion that the Trinity falls better under the diversity account, thus viewing the Trinity or each members thereof, as in dialogue, having needs to be fulfilled by each other and by the creatures they created.

Once you write something the conversation can go anyway the readers want it to go, thank you!

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Dad, you're too kind!

The comments above are helpful in exploring the many questions surrounding the historical peculiarities of the doctrine of the trinity.

However this post is part of a themed series of posts asking how each of the 28 fundamental beliefs translates into habits or actions today.

I have always enjoyed hearing you talk about a God that loves to be with us. Exploring ourselves as the bride of Christ and the trinity doctrine according to human relationships is new to so many of us that we simply don't know what to do with it and revert back to the creeds.

Thanks!

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Looking at the trinity as you have is quite radical idea as it challenges so many of our views on the immutability of God.

The essay above pushes against our ideas of an omnipotent and omniscient God. Or, did God _really_ negotiate with Moses and Abraham? And did Jesus really ask God to lift this burden from him and mean it???

The conversation on Gethsemane is one that clearly proves Jesus is not God. Or does it point to attributes of the Godhead/ trinity like is suggested by this post?

Personally, and not just because he's my dad and I like him, I think this essay did a noble job at making a mostly academic doctrine quite relevant and applicable to our lives today.

[Bruce]

"Based on the creation account I draw the conclusion that the Trinity falls better under the diversity"
How come we think God was talking to himself in this line?

[Bob Rigsby]

My friend Elaine:

Your use of and respect for scripture continues to puzzle me. Written by ancients locked in their own culture and non-scientific and biased prisons, you seem all to0 aware of it’s errors and limits and humanness. Fine. But then, when an idea or doctrine is not in scripture -- or at least not as explicitly as would suit you -- but does represent a synthesis, a new understanding, growth by following generations, you cry “No biblical authority”!

How is it you insist on having it both ways?

If the bible is not to be read literally, why not applaud when “beyond literal” interpretations and truths are derived from scripture? (See for example “supra-literal” ideas like the trinity -- this thread; and new Sabbath meanings -- recent threads) Instead, it seems you complain when it’s literal -- and when it’s not! You don’t trust bible writers -- nor do you trust it’s later expositors (except the ones who say you can trust the writers).

So, friend to friend, I’m still not clear on what grounds you… What DO you feel comfortable/safe in taking from scripture?

Our friend Cliff Goldstein sees this clearly and decides it is best/safest/most reasonable to just stick with (mostly) literal readings. But, uhhh, I can’t “go” there either. And indeed most on this blog seem to occupy the vast chasm between the extremes of you and Cliff. (Of course, neither of you comes close to the absolute extremes…)

I was struck by Cliff’s admission (a few threads ago where he and Alex discussed how literally to take the record of God’s violence in the OT) that he had to accept things he didn’t like when he interprets the bible the way he does. And I’d be curious to know; are there any things about your own stance toward the bible that you don’t like -- but feel compelled to hold?

I confess I get a smile whenever you ask a person for a text to support an assertion they’ve made. For the fact is, no text (s) will suffice to support an idea you’ve decided you don’t like! You find no case for the Sabbath, nor the trinity, nor for the divinity of Christ, nor for His resurrection, nor the incarnation, and so on. Your bar is either incredibly high, or low; I’m not really sure.

You remain an enigma to me Elaine…

(PS - I like these ideas presented here professor J R-J)

[Zane]

Hmmmm...about comments #3 & 4:

"3. Just like we have the need for companionship, God has the need for companionship. It is not a favor that God has saved us; it is because God needs us. Out of self-love God saved us!

4. Since God needs us we can feel as partners, members of the family of God. We are not strangers receiving charity, we can provide God with what She/He needs–companionship!"

God did not create/save from a sense of need, which would imply some kind of deficit in God. The doctrine of the Trinity implies relationality, but one that is wholly complete within the Godhead. God creates and saves out of love...The image I like (I believe drawn from Jonathan Edwards and faithful to orthodox conceptions of God) is of creation as an overflow of the perfect love that is shared by the Godhead. Creation and salvation are acts of love not need!

[Elaine]

A week of more ago I believe that I wrote that I was cursed, or blessed (depending on another's perspective) of playing the Devil's Advocate: not to be "ornery" (others may disagree), but whenever someone makes a statement it always seems to raise questions in my mind. So, yes, I'm aware that I too often see both sides of any coin. If that is a fault, it surely is mine.

When a biblical subject is being discussed, most of us here have some additional suggestions or questions else we would not be part of the blogging community. The old saying: if we all thought alike everyone else is superfluous, could apply. There will never be agreement on religion, even those who claim to be totally orthodox or the extreme liberal. From its earliest beginnings, the Christian belief had no unanimity. Why should we not be surprised that in the ensuing 2,000 years it should be different? There are only a lot more doctrines now put on the table; notice that the Adventist Beliefs now number 28. Compare those with the early church. Are they all necessary? Do not more doctrines cause discussions and rather than unity, promote
further dissent? Just as in civil government new laws that are made give more to be broken, simplicity has not been the rule.

The best attorneys understand and can argue both sides of a case; in fact the worst scenario is for one to be surprised by ignoring the arguments for the opposite side. Anticipating the opposing viewpoints is the best defense (or offense).

Classifications don't come easily, but my goal is to understand historically the context of scripture and the hermeneutics will vary by those who have previously chosen a theological premise. Since I don't claim to have chosen a personal religious stance, it can be called "wavering" and uncertainty. No objections.

As for "supporting texts" if most of us are somewhat conversant with the Bible, we are familiar with what the text says, but there may be two or more interpretations. We all have our favorite interpretations and shouldn't it be that way? If the Bible has no very subjective meaning to us, then of what use is it?

As to the question: "are there any things about your own stance toward the bible that you don’t like -- but feel compelled to hold?" On that I haven't been introspective other than to say that the Bible, IMHO, is not to deified, idolized, nor does it have any more special qualification other than what people have given it. How much is due to its antiquity and its profound sayings or to it being called "The Word of God" depends on each person. I can only say that I believe men wrote their thinking about God, and their thoughts about many things and is an interesting an unique view of how people in past ages lived and thought. They were surely no better nor worse than we are today, but they, like many other ancient cultures who credited their god(s) for many supernatural acts and also led them in war. Violence has always been a way of life and we today also try to find other excuses for our violent natures; we rarely blame god for inciting such acts.

Cliff's position on that seems quite schizophrenic, but others might find mine equally the same. As for deciding something I don't like; we all choose things we like or dislike. "You find no case for the Sabbath, nor the trinity, nor for the divinity of Christ, nor for His resurrection, nor the incarnation, and so on.'

You have said well: I've argued ad infinitum (or ad nauseum) a position I've held on the Sabbath for more than 20 years. I honestly don't feel there is any justification for Christians to observe that day. That's my reading of the NT.

The Trinity? That, too, IMO, is a man-made statement attempting to unify what is impossible because we know nothing of God, other than how man has chosen to describe an unknown entity; there is ONLY biblical stories of Jesus, and from no other source. What is written in the Gospels was second or third hand and the writers chose to weave and reinterpret OT prophecies to suit their theological position. We have no record written by an observer during Jesus' birth or lifetime, and his miraculous birth was an invention out of whole cloth, imitating similar stories of virgin births and gods long before. This gave him authority in that culture when gods had great power. The Delphic Oracle was still a place where Appolo was worshiped and the prophecies were most important to people then.

Because no one here today would openly declare he has observed a virgin birth or someone who's been raised from the dead (any takers?), it is rather ironic that such stories, if old enough, and recorded in the Bible, somehow attain absolute, literal truth. Can someone explain how their rational thinking takes leave when they read such things? How and through what processes do these stories suddenly become "aboslute truth"? Is it because their ancestors have always believed so?

I claim no knowledge of God, other than what my mind can conceive; and what can be conceived in the mind can also be created there. Isn't that exactly what all the biblical writers used, also? Their mind could conceive it, so they also perceived it?

[Bob Rigsby]

Elaine:

Thanks for the well considered response; I knew it would be a “softball” question for you. But you have yet to answer my main question:

What is it that grounds you??

The moment someone decides something is “so” it means they have simultaneously decided something else is “not so”. And by so declaring himself, leaves himself open to criticism. If a stand is never taken, what is there to criticize? I guess I’m asking what “stand” you have taken and why? (ie why not leave yourself open to criticism just like Cliff has?) If one stands for nothing, on what basis can they critique anything?

If we picture our life’s journey, and it’s wrestlings with truth claims, we might imagine we travel between two vast peaks; personal revelation of God on one side of the chasm (good word; chasm) and the accumulated sharing’s of each others and our ancestors personal revelations of God on the other. Thus I see you as walking too close to the “personal” peak -- while I see Cliff holding too closely the “personal revelations” of others. (Of course it can get confusing -- you called it “schizophrenic” -- when one claims his personal revelation always confirms the revelations to others.) Seems if one doesn’t ”like” something about the revelations of others, that must mean his personal revelation does not in fact support the revelation as seen by others. (“Like” having nothing to do with feelings but rather a discomfort that something is true)

So here’s the irony in the whole thing: I find myself blessed by both you and Cliff on this journey! Even though you think very differently. (And Cliff, if you're listening, I do appreciate that you are such a good sport in all this conversation…) Imagine; learning from each other. Isn’t that precisely how community should work?

So of course the notion of the Trinity must be only a partial representation of reality; one designed for human minds. But, last time I checked we still remain humans so the thoughts remain useful to spur further building of constructs and concepts; which is exactly what I here professor Johnny Ramirez Johnson doing here.

[Zane]

Dr. JRJ (to distinguish from the other Johnny R.),

Adding to my last comment, perhaps just stating in a slightly different way, Christians have traditionally affirmed that God created out of free-will and that creation is contingent.

This may seem like theological hair-splitting, but I do think this issue has important ethical implications (which I think is the theme of this series of posts). If we are to "love" as God loves, and if we conceive of the Trinity as you have articulated, the acts of "love", i.e. social action, we enact, would be ultimately egoistic--I love others, because in the end that is what I need.

Christians affirm God's love as unconditional, free, etc. i.e. "agape." To use a distinction by Nygren, this is different from "eros" which is a love based on need, i.e. human love.

Christians are called to love others the way God has loved them...

[Bob Rigsby]

Zane:

My initial reaction was a bit like yours. (your post of 30 June 2007 at 18:50) Then I realized I just think of it in slightly different terms. It’s hard to think of God as being “needy” or maybe as “incomplete” without us. However, I think most all of us believe God is personal and not some sort of passive, distant, aloof, uninvolved and unconcerned force. Further, we matter to God -- that much seems clear given the lengths to which He has gone to reclaim us. Thus it seems not a stretch at all to see a God who is somehow “happy” when we are in proper relationship with Him. Our separation from Him somehow causes an emptiness and loss in His heart -- which is not at all the same thing as saying God “needs” us. For in fact, what would we say about a Father who quickly and easily “got over” the loss of a son. Sure he continues on, but there is always a hole in his heart, memories of oneness and togetherness, a sadness and tension at the separation.

And it was this realization about God and the realities of relationship that helped push me into the belief God will, in the end, save everyone. We see eternity as a time of complete happiness; a happiness which simply cannot exist, especially in the heart of God, without those He has created and loved. I do not believe God can or will live on into eternity (granting I can’t grasp this whole eternity concept) with the tension that comes from loss of love if some are vaporized. It’s inconsistent with what God is about. (see Thomas Talbott’s “The Inescapable Love of God” chapters 7 and 8 and especially 12)

[Zane]

Hi Elaine,

I believe that we've discussed some of these these issues elsewhere, i.e. the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., so there is no need to rehash our differences on these matters.

I do appreciate the "apophatic", i.e. negative aspects of your theology. Human ideas about God should never be mistaken with God him/herself and our understanding of God is always partial and provisional. This principle, I believe is affirmed my most theologians, Christian and non.

What I find curious with your view is that you seem to, at the same time, limit discussion of God to your own "human" conception of him. In other words, God can and cannot do do certain things. God is imprisoned to the cage of "modern", liberal thinking.

The way you put it: "I claim no knowledge of God, other than what my mind can conceive..."

Wouldn't a properly apophatic view of God be more modest than this? (The Trinity, properly understood, affirms the idea that God exceeds our conceptual capacities...)

Your view also presupposes that God cannot communicate to and through people. In other words, while you affirm (as I do) what we cannot know about God with our reasoning powers, you also deny that God has revealed himself in history, and also that he through his Spirit, reveals truths about himself through the reading, teaching, and preaching of the Scriptures and guides his people, i.e. the church. Here is where we part ways...

Also, very briefly about the resurrections. You write: "Because no one here today would openly declare he has observed a virgin birth or someone who's been raised from the dead (any takers?), it is rather ironic that such stories, if old enough, and recorded in the Bible, somehow attain absolute, literal truth."

Christians do not claim that resurrections happen all the time. It is a singular, unique event that validates the veracity/truth of Jesus' message and teaching. It was the resurrection that fueled the firm conviction of the early church, that Jesus was the promised Messiah, leading to persecution and death.

We are left wondering if people willing give up their lives for stories they have made up!

[Bruce]

Zane
"guides his people, i.e. the church"

Is there any indication that the percentage of God's people within the church is greater or different than the people He claims who "are not of this fold"?

[Zane]

Bruce,

I'm not to sure what you mean by this question...Indicated by whom?

Perhaps you are asking a rhetorical question to make a point...Yes, I believe that "God's people" are everywhere...He is the Creator of everything/everyone. I also believe in the concepts of common and prevenient grace , which mean that God's Spirit is at work in everyone, guiding people and drawing them closer to him.

However, there are those that respond to this leading and those that do not.

Those that do, and trust in the way God has worked and revealed himself in Jesus Christ,i.e. the church, are guided by the Spirit in a different sense of the word...(In the sense Jesus referred to in John of being guided into "all truth." )

I hope this clarifies what I meant...

[Zane]

Bob,

I, by no means, wanted to imply that God was impersonal, or aloof with my comment.

My main concern is the understanding of God's love that follows from a statement like "Out of self-love God saved us" (Statement #3).

This, I think, models God's after human love, instead of vice versa. In other words, it overly "anthromorphisizes" God.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

There is no Scriptural proof of the trinity other than the words of Jesus.
Jesus speaks of the Father, He claims to be the Divine Son of God, and He promises to send the Comforter. There after the Gospel writers use the same terms to identity the Godhead ie. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" etc. From the words of Jesus and the apostolic writers the early creeds of the Church emerged: Affirming the triune nature of God. People killed and died over the meaning of the nature of the Godhead. We just have vain arguments. "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness" There are a lot of things I don't understand but I sure do know that I am a sinner and Jesus Christ, a very God a very God and Man a very Man came, lived, died, and rose again for me. His Spirit has comforted me through 82 years of toil, stress, fear, and love. Just an old man leaning on the Everlasting Arms. Tom

[Wondering]

One day, it hit me that Elaine has never explicitly called herself either "Christian" or "Seventh-Day Adventist"--and that chenged everything for me.

I used to think that the many books out there about Christian exegesis, would be food for many of the re-hashed skeptical questions that we see from time to time from various quarters.
But now I see that I was optimistic--a little to optimistic that non-traditional people would ever deign to read traditional texts.

Anyways. For those of you who had the ffollowing questions, the following books are absolutley essential to read (especially the first one):

--What does it mean to be "begotten", and how can a "begotten Son" be "co-eternal"?

This is answered decisively in Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis

--Did Jesus claim to be the Son of God (God himself)?

This is answered at great length in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ; several times over.

Seventh-Day Adevntists are not "creedal freaks" according to Bull and Lockhart, and the 27 or 28 Fundamental Beliefs are not meant to be all-exhaustive commentary on every point of doctrine.
There was a book written about all that, where you can go through the theology in detail (if that is what you really want).

So, the apparent "disconnect" between the "creeds" and SDA beliefs is totally manufactured in more than one way--if not irrelevant to begin with. And what better doctrine could this happen with? One that is inherently paradoxical and hard to understand in the first place and about which no modern mainstream Christian has ever professed full understanding.

[Elaine]

Bob, you and I have enjoyed our conversations precisely because we do not see "eye-to-eye" but can still find much to agree on, i.e., we both find that universalism is consistent with the belief that God is love and could not destroy his children any more than a parent can kill his child.

From that initial premise we've chosen, divergent paths follow. The one consistent "ground" for me is choosing that God, or a Supreme Being is LOVE personified, which is the only way humans can understand love. That is the reason I cannot agree with Cliff who is certain on the biblical story of creation, admits to difficulty in explaining the violence credited to God by the OT writers. To me, it would be inconsistent to claim that God is love and then acknowledge that he chose to kill nearly all his children in the flood, and only some in later events. So, for that reason, I reject those stories as nothing more than a justification for acts: claiming anything done in God's name is the end of most discussions. Simply because the Hebrews either thought, or were certain their God behaved in this manner, does not imply that theirs is the correct understanding.

Like you, we only learn from those with whom we disagree: they give us pause to reevaluate our thinking. Like Socrates, we should be unafraid of expressing doubt. In a Washing Post essay, Joel Achenbach refers to the great philosopher's typical questions: "How do you know that? What's the evidence for that? What do you really mean when you say that? Here's the implication of that claim. Here's the danger you get into if you try to generalize that claim and apply it to everyone."

Given the current problems in our world today, we should have more leaders who would not fear to express doubt. It has been viewed as weakness, and to ever change one's mind is a sign of weak character. Had our leaders asked more questions, were might it have led them? Certainty is no sign of absolute truth nor is personal confidence always the only option. There just might be more than one way to view any situation.

Some elements of critical thinking posited by psychologists:

1. Ask questions; be willing to wonder.

2. Define your problem correctly.

3. Examine the evidence.

4. Analyze assumptions and biases.

5. Avoid emotional reasoning.

6. Don't oversimplify.

7. Consider other interpretations.

8. Tolerate uncertainty.

In our contemporary society, examing evidence and contemplating biases can be extremely inconvenient. Most organizations (churhes included) favor absolutism.

Because we can never have absolute information on God or religious doctrines, we should always maintain an attitude of temporary positions: anything can be changed with either new information or better hermeneutics. Case in point: Findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls and at Nag Hamadi. Evidence can confirm but can also reject previous hypotheses. We should also not forget that our SDA pioneers did not have access to the best scriptural translations but were limited, largely, to the KJV. Today, we know that all the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint which is a better translation than the Masoretic text which the KJV and others used.

As for the Trinity, whether one adopts it or not, doesn't have anything to do with God's requirement of us and if it helps some to better understand God, that is their privilege. It may be a good representation of reality for men, but having none at all for the better half of humanity, it certainly shortchages us, the females, doesn't it?

[Elaine]

Zane, you wrote:

What I find curious with your view is that you seem to, at the same time, limit discussion of God to your own "human" conception of him."

Is there another way? Can we think of him in other than our human mind? Aren't we limited to that?

Yes, others have written about him; we, too, can write about him. But none is through other than our human ability to reason and think. If God reveals himself to humans, that necessarily implies that we humans will not always have identical impressions.

What did you have in mind?

About the Resurrection: I agree that it was the ONLY reason the Christian church began. However, supernatural events were so common, according to all our understanding of their contemporaries, that whether it actually happened is unimportant to Christians today. It is the only reason for a Christian church and it is evident that the apostles believe that SOMETHING happened, and from that one event, the Christian church emerged.

My question: Are Christians those who believe in the miracles and Resurrection? Or, could they be followers of Christ's teachings? Must they be both? Great leaders have followers: Moses had his, Plato had his, Augustine and Luther also; none gained followers by miracles. Are they necessary and how important are they? Do the principles on the Sermon on the Mount require them? Does the principle of treating others as you wish, demand miracles? Do we overemphasize those and minimize Christ's teachings?

[Elaine]

Wondering wrote:

"One day, it hit me that Elaine has never explicitly called herself either "Christian" or "Seventh-Day Adventist"--and that chenged everything for me."

Bingo! I have made no secret of those facts in my postings here. As an ex-Adventist, I do have more than a little knowledge of the church and its operations, so am comfortable discussing on this blog. And especially, when most are very open-minded and willing, at least, to listen to other viewpoints.

If one limits his reading to apologetics he is only seeing one side of a picture. The ability to see more than one view is both enlightening and educational. I have Strobel's and Lewis' books, but I also have at least 50 or more books on the history of Christianity from all perspectives, so I do not wish to limit my knowledge in any way. Having read rather widely, I find some of the "arguments" for Christ to be nothing new, as a true believer must emphasize his personal reasons and I like to also consider historical contexts and secular writings of that era, and am familiar with most of the best-known contemporary Christian writers, as well as some now long deceased.

You said: "But now I see that I was optimistic--a little to optimistic that non-traditional people would ever deign to read traditional texts."

Au contraire! Most of us "non-traditionalists" HAVE read those texts--but we have also read others. Perhaps we should all be more familiar with the "other" books. Having breathed the atmosphere of the Bible and the SOP during half my life, I finally thought it time to see if there just might be other views. OH! yes, definitely, and then the mind gets in high gear. How can there possibly be another view of history than what EGW described in Great Controversy? Was Thomas Paine the complete atheist she described? Everyone should have a go at history of the Christian church written by a variety of writers. Refreshing! A mind, once stretched, can never return to its original dimensions.

[Wondering]

Elaine,

1. Just because human beings are limited to a "human" understanding of God, doesn't mean that God is not bigger than that.
It just requires a dose of humility to accept what one cannot "humanly" understand.
After all anything we understand bout God isn't "humanly" discerned anyway.
We are not materialists here.

2. It is emotional reasoning to think that "violence" or anything that's rough and tragic are not part of the dimensions of "love".
The Bible says that God is Love--not the other way around.
As such, we don't know the half of Love.
Love requires all sorts of things, including crucifiction.
The very nature of God (the source of life) can be all-consuming, so much so, that even sinless angels cover their faces before God.
It's way more than the "fuzzy feeling we like" that has become popular in the post-modern age (and has lead to destruction).
We will get to judge that for ourselves when Jesus comes--as the whole universe is looking on.

3. I am of the opinion that although there may be "lots of perspectives" that does not make all of them equal--or even true.
Arguments must stand on their merits.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Wondering

Granted SDA's are not creedal freaks! They are Spirit of Prophecy freaks.

If challenged, I would rather defend the Apostles Creed that The final chapters of Great Controversy. When the jailer ashed Paul what must I do to be saved, Paul didn't refer to 16 feet of E. G. White publications. Look it up. Tom

[Joselito Coo]

Zane probably has his finger on the exact same question regarding #3 and #4 I wanted to ask. May we validly infer from our human need the conclusion of the Trinity/God's insufficiency? Seems that instead of applying the doctrine of the Trinity to human relationship, the opposite has been posited: marital union of male and female, for instance, has been applied to God! Since in heaven there will be no marriage of male and female as we know it, may we properly postulate "in heaven as it is on earth"?

Was it not Thomas Aquinas who argued that, because of the presumed vast qualitative difference between deity and humanity, religious language may only be understood analogically? "My [God's) thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways." Isaiah 55:8, 9.

About 1 ("We do not need to be able to understand in order to believe. Just like we do not understand the logic of our spouse’s in order to always love them...!") I agree we cannot reason our way to God; thus the need for the Incarnation and God's self-revelation. "In the past God spoke..." (Hebrews 1:1f). See Bill Cork's comments. Although our undersanding will always be incomplete, "as in a glass darkly," may we not safely assume our perception should not contradict logic? Does not reason make all theologizing possible? Faith seeking understanding? Or, shall we simply "Submit!" to a love relationship, whatever that implies, believing first, sans logical prior consideration? Really?

[Elaine]

"may we not safely assume our perception should not contradict logic?"

Ah! you've described the continuing problem: If we dismiss our logic and reason and "submit" do we not then become mere robots? What happens to free will with that scenario? Does God want robots or humans exhibiting a choice, a choice he demonstrated with our first ancestors?