The Trinity...?

So for our Theology class this week we are going through the Trinity. Trying to understand how God can be three persons in one; three individuals, all with unique responsibilities and personalities and yet all one single entity. The typical response for this kind of lack of understanding is "Oh, well we can't comprehend it with our limited human understanding, we just have to accept it as it is." What I don't understand is, why would God reveal Himself to us in way that we couldn't understand? That just doesn't make sense with what I understand of who God is. If the Bible was written for us as a special revelation, revealing God and His nature to us, then why would He insert this concept of Himself that we could not possibly understand? Either He revealed it to us because we can understand it, or He didn't reveal it to us and the Church inserted the idea of a Triune God into their understanding of the Bible. My main reasoning behind this second answer is that there is no mention of the trinity anywhere in the Bible. I have to admit that during my class period I didn't pay any attention to what the professor was teaching. Instead, I spent the hour searching through my NIV Bible for all references to God as well as any reference to the other two members of the Trinity - Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Here is what I found:

There are 3 specific persons of God mentioned in the Bible: God (the Father), Jesus Christ, and it is understood that the Holy Spirit is of God. However, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, there are no statements, allusions, or references indicating that the three are indeed one. The use of the word "God" and all references to Him are used throughout the entire Bible in a singular form, with the general exception of Genesis 1:26 - "Let US make man in OUR image..." In all other cases, you will see grammar like: "The Lord your God", "The God of Israel", "I am God Almighty", "and I will be your God". God, as He is revealed to us through Scripture, is a singular entity.

Let's look at His Son, Jesus Christ. In Mark 16:19 Jesus ascends into Heaven, to sit at the right hand of God the Father. Note that he is not sitting on the same throne, there are at least two seats up there. Sitting at the right hand also implies a certain degree of servitude, or submission, to whomever it is that you are sitting at the right hand of. I'd like to qualify here that I still believe Jesus Christ is divine. After all He is called the Son of God(as well as the Son of Man), and just as I am a Spatz because I am my father's son, so Jesus is divine because He is the Son of the Divine. One can know the father through his son, or at least that was case back in those days. In those days, the son would learn his father's trade(we see this in the case of Simon Peter and his brother, and James and his brother, working with their respective fathers). In some cases, Jesus would be called the son of the carpenter, or a carpenter in and of himself. His father was a carpenter, so he was too, or at least he knew the trade. In the same way, just as God is divine in nature, so is Jesus divine in nature because he is God's Son.

I want to stress the difference though. Jesus is divine, but He is not God. Nor do I believe He ever claimed to be God (at least not God, the Lord Almighty). He claimed instead to be the Son of God, the promised Messiah sent to save mankind from their sins and eternal damnation. In John 3:16, it says that God sent His Son. He didn't send Himself, He sent His Son, one whom He has authority over and can thus send. To further this concept of their separateness, in John 14:1 Jesus himself says, "Trust in God, trust also in me." Indicating that He and God are not the same person. In Acts 2:24 God raised Jesus (a man) from the dead. He exerted power over someone separate from Himself. In fact, the entire crucifixion scene indicates to me that there could be no direct being between God and Jesus, meaning that they are not the same person. At one point God forsakes His Son because He cannot look upon sin "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" In Luke 18:19, Jesus asks "Why do you call me good? ... No one is good, except God alone." In Philippians 2:5-11 it says Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. And later God exalts Jesus to the highest place, so that "every tongue [may] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." So while Jesus is definitely worthy of our worship and praise as Lord and Savior, it does not seem to me that he is God. So far I see a definite separation of status between Jesus and God. In 1 Timothy 2:5, Jesus is called a mediator between us and God, and as we know he is the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father except through him. So while Jesus is definitely of a divine nature, he is not of the same nature as God the Father, nor does he seem to be on the same level as God the Father.

Then comes the Holy Spirit. This one is more plain than the argument for Jesus. In Genesis 1 it says the Spirit of the Lord was hovering over the waters. This can either be the Holy Spirit or it is referring to God being in spirit form, I'm not really sure. Then later, in Genesis 6:3 it says, "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal, his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'" A little note here brought me to Galations 5:16-17, where it says, "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." And it goes on to say that the Spirit and the sinful nature are in direct conflict with one another. I think in both these cases it seems that the Spirit has some separation from God as well, just like Jesus did. And of course, the concept of the Trinity allows for this kind of separation. They are 3 distinct entities in one. However, in Jesus' case, he had claim to divinity, being the Son of God. However, this is not the case for the Holy Spirit. Not a single passage in the Bible, at least not one that I could find, made any reference to the Holy Spirit as God. Instead, the verses I found all seem to reflect the idea that the Spirit is a lower entity that belongs to God, as something/someone which He can give commands to and send to places. In Isaiah 63:10 it says, "Yet they(the Israelites) rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them." And in the context of this passage it would seem that it is indeed talking about His essence, His Spirit, in the same way that we would talk about being in high or low spirits. But in the New Testament, where most of our information about the Holy Spirit is found, the Holy Spirit (or the Spirit of God) is portrayed as a manifestation of God's will, meaning that God works through His spirit on earth. In Luke 11:13 we see the Holy Spirit as something/someone who can be given away by God the Father: "...how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" In John 4:23-24 we see that God is spirit: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth."
This passage also had a  note, which brought me to Philippians 3:3, which says that "we worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus." Here it seems plain to me that the use of the term "spirit" is directly related to God. It isn't saying that there is a Spirit that is God, but it does say that God is spirit, indicating that He is not of this world, He is not physical in form. Yet we can worship Him by His spirit, which He has given to those of us who have asked. In John 14:26 it says that God will send us a Counselor to be with us after Jesus has ascended. And we get a look at the function of that counselor in John 16:13-15:
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you."
The Holy Spirit, then, is not God the Father, as we see here, because he only speaks what he hears from Jesus, to whom it was given by God the Father. The Spirit of God is a messenger from God, revealing to us what he hears from God, which is truth. And finally in John 20:22, we find Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to his disciples. Once again we see the Holy Spirit as someone who can be given away. The Holy Spirit comes from God, but is never said to BE God, at least not in the NIV translation.

Something that Leroy Jenkins brought up to me during class was the Nicean Council, which met to determine the person and nature of Jesus Christ in relation to God. At this time, there was no concept of the Trinity. The Council met in 325 CE, and the conclusion was that Jesus Christ was of divine nature. It was not until many years later that the idea of the Holy Spirit being part of this triune God came into the catholic church doctrine.

An idea similar to what I have been contemplating is Subordinationism, which was thought of by Origen, and which inspired Arius' Arianism (which was condemned as heresy in the Nicean Council). Subordinationism claims that the Son is eternally divine but not equal to the Father in being or attributes. Another idea is that of Adoptionism, which says that Jesus was just a man until his baptism, when God the Father adopted him as His Son. This doesn't seem likely in my opinion when I consider the birth narrative of Jesus.

I would propose, to sum up what I have said thus far, that God the Father is the eternal God and Lord Almighty who created the world and all that is in it. His Son, who is also of divine nature, acts as a mediator between God and Man, and came down to earth as a man to save us from our sins, offering up his life as a sacrifice for our atonement. The Holy Spirit is then a manifestation of the will of God, given to us as a messenger and sanctifier, indwelling and empowering us to be followers of Jesus Christ and his example. God is God, Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ, and they are both divine; the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and though it has divine qualities(being of and from God), he is not the God we worship, but rather he is what allows us to worship and know who it is that we worship.

This still leaves me with some questions, like were Jesus and the Holy Spirit created? And if so, when? Or is it possible that Jesus has always existed but is not God? That is to say, can he have existed before creation and yet be separate from God? And what do we do with passages like Matthew 28:19?
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

The other side of the argument of the Trinity is whether there are ONLY 3 persons of God. As Leroy Jenkins figured out during another class, 3-sided objects do not (and cannot) exist in the 3rd dimension. So either God has only one Person, or He has 4 or more. Who really knows? All I know is that if the Bible is supposed to give us Special Revelation, why would it contain concepts and ideas beyond our comprehension? I feel like He would want us to be able to understand who He is, and thus worship Him as such.

I would also like to state that my denial (or contention) in regard to the Trinity is considered heresy in the Church. But what if the concept of the Trinity is not an accurate portrayal of the nature of God? What then? How might that impact our understanding of who God is, and thus who it is that we worship?

Chapel

We are talking about chapel and how we are required to go to 30 every semester. I just want to say that if chapel were not required, I would not go.

Truth

So what is truth? How can we as human beings grasp it? CAN we as human beings grasp it? Does it really exist or has the postmodern world destroyed it? Has our newfound concept of multiple truths killed any prospect of absolute truth, and in so doing destroyed any hope we have of stability in a society of spiritual chaos?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I started thinking aout these questions during my Christian Formation class the other day. We were talking about philosophy's effect on the Christian faith and how we've come to the postmodernity we live in now. By postmodernity I mean an age in which we question everything because we are skeptical of everything. Tradition, history, all stability we might have is thrown out the window as we question everything people used to hold as absolutely true. And so a question that was asked in class was how we viewed truth, and how we believed it could be obtained and defined and verified. The issue we were dealing with is the multiple truth philosophy held by our society; how what is true for you is not necessarily true for me. And the problem that poses to Christianity is this: How can we claim to have the truth when everyone else has their own truth? Who are we to challenge the truths held by other religions, or even just the truth held by the people around us?

How do we define truth? From a Christian standpoint truth is defined as the Words of God. He is our precedent of truth. But is that adequate today? I don't think many postmodernistic people would say so. Truth has to be something that everyone not only CAN agree on, but HAS to agree on. An absolute truth is something that cannot be denied, it cannot be contested, because it is absolutely true. This is a poor example, but you cannot adequately argue that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. It is a known truth, it is something we can all agree on. But that is math, not theology. How do we defend our faith as true from a postmodern world? If nothing is absolutely true anymore, what can anyone believe in beyond themselves? Nothing. There is no stability in a world without universal truth. And despite the chaos that is rampant in society, I would say we live in a very stable world, which means that something or someone is keeping it that way. In my mind, God is a necessary truth. He has to exist, or none of this makes any sense. Without Him, there is no purpose to the world, no order to the world, and no purpose in our lives.

Unfortunately I can't think straight right now, so I'll end this post here. Hopefully I'll have more structured things to say on this later.

Worship

This is less focused on what worship really is, and more focused on the differences between contemporary and traditional worship. We were talking about hymns and musical preferences when it comes to worship in a church service during my apologetics class today. And it got me to thinking which is better, if either of them, in regards to worship? Because we were also talking about the benefits of clinging onto tradition, and how especially in today's world of constant motion and change people are searching for something constant and stable. So during class I kind of listed out some of the pros and cons of each(from my perspective of course):

Contemporary Pros:
More relevant to contemporary listeners/worshippers
Directed more toward individual
Carries a lot of emotional content and feelings
Fast-paced like our society

Hymn Pros:
Communal
Simple, easy to pick up
Solidly based on Scripture
Traditional
Recognizable
Slow-paced

Contemporary Cons:
Complex, hard to pick up new songs
Tempos and rythms vary a great deal
Theological ideals range drastically
Too focused on self, not enough on God

Hymn Cons:
Emotionless sometimes?
"Old"
Disconnected from today's society and today's problems

So which is better for a church service? I know some churches like to have two services; one for contemporary worship and one for traditional worship, and other churches try to mix it up during the service, and put in a little of both. My professor hates that idea, he believes that leaves everybody unhappy. And of course there are churches that decide one is better than the other and only offer that kind of worship. Now, I actually enjoy services that include both forms of worship, especially when its done well. But I'm still left with the question: Which is better, or more conducive to worship?

I'm not sure there is an answer here, at least not an all-encompassing one. Different people grow up with different forms of worship, and thus prefer different forms of worship in accordance(most of the time) with what they grow up with. Not to say that some if not most people can/will adjust to new forms of worship, but I still think there is a preference in everybody for what they grow up with.

Which leads me to believe that there is no best form of worship. So long as we are worshipping our God and Creator, I think we can do that in whatever way works.

Food for Thought

This post will probably be updated with comments or something like that now and again. But a question that came to me during my Christian Formation class as we talked briefly about Rene Descartes was this: In his statement "I think therefore I am.", was Descartes asserting some claim to divinity with the use of the phrase "I am"?? He was a man of the Christian faith, to the shock of many, and his philosophical ideas were intended to further man's knowledge of, and ability to know, God. And so I am wondering if he intentionally used that phrase in his philosophy, in an attempt to draw the image of man closer to the image of God.