# Dangers of straying from the doctrine of the trinity?



## Supersillymanable (May 17, 2012)

I know that a post quite recently has already been put up about the Trinity, but Dai Li's post jogged my memory about something I wished to ask about.

My friend, who was once quite close to me, though I was sure he was regenerate and loved God, seemed to have no qualms about questioning the mere validity of the doctrine of the trinity. He seemed to think it wasn't essential to the Christian faith, regardless of whether the Bible actually taught it or not. He didn't necessarily deny it, but neither did he affirm it. 

Though I know the Bible does teach the doctrine of the Trinity, what I wanted to know was, what are the dangers of when people abandon it? What other problems does it then entail? Any thoughts/help?


----------



## arapahoepark (May 17, 2012)

On the worst side of things salvation is messed up for good. I will not say that someone CAN be a Christian while abandoning it, because it would only lead to problems. In regards to salvation we all know Christ's active obedience was imputed to us, because as God he was the only one who could obey the law. In regards to the Holy Spirit and sanctification, then we are also relying on ourselves (do correct me if I am wrong, but isn't sanctification sort of synergistic...?) and not to God and Jesus for what they've done.
Not to mention the can of worms it opens if Jesus was wrong about anything, case and point the OT as God's word and then everything comes crumbling down.

I believe it better to address the worst side of things then try to come up with ecumenism and say someone is still a Christian despite believing falsely, because it's the wrong question to ask what little can I do or believe to be a Christian. The right question should be what is the most I must believe and do to be a Christian. In your friend's case, however, I will not pass a harsh judgment since it seems like you yourself are unaware of what exactly he believes.


----------



## gordo (May 17, 2012)

Good question. I wonder that too. I have always taken the trinity as truth, but I don't really get too worked up about it.


----------



## Supersillymanable (May 17, 2012)

> Not to affirm such truth deals us all sorts of hermeneutical, philosophical, and soul-damaging problems in our understanding of God.



Could you elaborate, or indeed anyone else on some of the philosophical problems as well as hermeneutical ones also? One of the ones that seemed most obvious was Jesus' deity, and how salvation works without the Trinity in place. I'm pretty sure he completely agrees with the full deity of Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father. I think he's more unsure than outright denying the doctrine.




arap said:


> On the worst side of things salvation is messed up for good.



Agreed. This is a major problem I've spotted, but he does affirm the full deity of Christ though...


----------



## Philip (May 17, 2012)

It's essential because that's the way that God reveals Himself to us: the Father is revealed by the Son through the Spirit.


----------



## Beau Michel (May 17, 2012)

Thanks Joshua for the wealth of information and references.To believe in a "God" who is not the Triune God as he revealed himself in Scripture,is to believe in a false God,an idol,which is no God at all.


----------



## Supersillymanable (May 17, 2012)

Thanks Josh, that was a really helpful post. 

As I see it at the moment a few of the issues at stake are:

If we worship any God who isn't the triune God, we are guilty of idolatry, therefore the issue of the Trinity is quite important, otherwise we're no better than the worshippers of Baal.

If there is no Trinity, we essentially have no mediator, or anyone interceding for us, as there are no other persons in the Godhead (correct me if I'm wrong on any of these).

If there is no Trinity, how could Jesus bare (bear?), the punishment from the Father, if there is no Trinity, atoning for our sins and reconciling us to the Father. 

Are there any other issues at stake? Have I articulated any of my points badly, or are any simply plain incorrect?

---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

Thanks Josh, that was a really helpful post. 

As I see it at the moment a few of the issues at stake are:

If we worship any God who isn't the triune God, we are guilty of idolatry, therefore the issue of the Trinity is quite important, otherwise we're no better than the worshippers of Baal.

If there is no Trinity, we essentially have no mediator, or anyone interceding for us, as there are no other persons in the Godhead (correct me if I'm wrong on any of these).

If there is no Trinity, how could Jesus bare (bear?), the punishment from the Father, if there is no Trinity, atoning for our sins and reconciling us to the Father. 

Are there any other issues at stake? Have I articulated any of my points badly, or are any simply plain incorrect?


----------



## Jack K (May 17, 2012)

One thing the Trinity means is that God delights in God without being self-centered. The Son glorifies not himself but the Father, while the Father glorifies the Son. He is a self-giving God of love, eternally, not just recently with Jesus.

Mike Reeves is very good on this, and presents his case winsomely to today's generation.

Book:
The Good God: Enjoying Father, Son and Spirit

Talks:
The Trinity and Mission
Enjoying the Trinity series


----------



## Supersillymanable (May 17, 2012)

Jack K said:


> One thing the Trinity means is that God delights in God without being self-centered. The Son glorifies not himself but the Father, while the Father glorifies the Son. He is a self-giving God of love, eternally, not just recently with Jesus.



Thanks! I'll get a hold of that book as soon as I've saved up the Pennies... Or Cents, depending on where you're from...


----------



## Jack K (May 17, 2012)

Supersillymanable said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > One thing the Trinity means is that God delights in God without being self-centered. The Son glorifies not himself but the Father, while the Father glorifies the Son. He is a self-giving God of love, eternally, not just recently with Jesus.
> ...



Glad to help (and hope it does). I haven't actually read the book yet, but I suspect it's similar to the talks. I like the talks a lot. One of his premises is that when you forget the doctrine of the Trinity you tend to end up thinking God is a self-centered sort of being who, at his core, is mostly interested in taking something from us... taking our worship, our obedience, etc. He's almighty and occasionally kind, but not particularly likeable. This is, indeed, exactly how many of today's theology-poor people in the Christianized world think of God. And it's the way the world's millions of monotheists think of God.


----------



## py3ak (May 17, 2012)

If we cannot believe on him of whom we have not heard, how can we believe in the true God if all we have heard are lies? Or how can we call upon him if we believe him to be other than he is?
There are other consequences, of course, as has been pointed out: it makes hash of creation, of the life of Christ, of the doctrine of atonement, of prayer, and other things; but obscuring the true knowledge of God behind a cloud of error must surely be considered a fundamental and grievous error.


----------



## jwright82 (May 17, 2012)

Supersillymanable said:


> Could you elaborate, or indeed anyone else on some of the philosophical problems



Usually people abandon this doctrine because of philosophical issues. In short they take certain philosophical categories and use them to say what must be or must not be true of God. The greater danger In my humble opinion is to abandon the categories that God uses to reveal himself to us. All revelation is anthropomorphic in the sense that God condescends to our level, or accommodates to our creaturely weakness as Calvin would say, to take on human concepts and ideas to reveals himself to us. When we use our own than we have called into question his wisdom by “correcting” God’s mistake. God reveals himself in male pronouns so we must also. 

With that being said my point was that calling the Trinity into question calls into question the idea of revelation itself. God reveals to us not the other way around. It also makes philosophy primary to theology. The order goes like this: theologians study God’s self-revelation, than they take up logical and philosophical categories that help us to make better sense out of that revelation, the philosopher takes up this theology and works out the philosophical details of it. Now when we put philosophy first we take what is purely human and use it to judge what is purely divine, we become judge over God. Philosophy investigates creation not the Creator. 

Now so right at the beginning the theological prolegomena we run into problems by rejecting the Trinity. What really gets philosophers going though is the mystery involved in the doctrine. They point out that God cannot be one and three at the same time and the same relationship. We resolve that tension by confessing that God is three of one category personhood and one of another category essence. But that is as far as we can go. They cry foul but why? Because they don’t like something being beyond “reasons” grasp. They do not wish to submit to God on this or anything else. 

Sometimes Christians go too far to accommodate our doctrine of to make unbelievers feel better about it. But who are they that God should pay them any mind. Van Til went further in his rejection of this view by pointing out that God is both three persons and one person at the same time. I guess he meant two different senses of the word person. Also he apparently pointed out (I don’t know where but Frame gives a good discussion of it in his Van Til book) that scripture reveals God as one person and three persons. 

We must bow out to man's speculations about the divine nature apart from revelation.


----------



## py3ak (May 17, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Van Til went further in his rejection of this view by pointing out that God is both three persons and one person at the same time. I guess he meant two different senses of the word person. Also he apparently pointed out (I don’t know where but Frame gives a good discussion of it in his Van Til book) that scripture reveals God as one person and three persons.



I don't know that I would list this as one of his strong points.


----------



## Philip (May 17, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> God reveals to us not the other way around.



This is the central point: that God reveals Himself. He reveals Himself as he is: as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He reveals Himself as the Father through the Son by the Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is what distinguishes our understanding of the revelation and being of God as Christian.


----------



## bookslover (May 18, 2012)

Any guesses as to why the Scriptures don't give the Holy Spirit a personal/relationship name, as the Father and the Son have? "Holy Spirit" sounds kind of impersonal (and, yes, the Holy Spirit is a fully divine Person). Just curious...


----------



## Supersillymanable (May 18, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Now when we put philosophy first we take what is purely human and use it to judge what is purely divine, we become judge over God. Philosophy investigates creation not the Creator.



Yes, I see this happen all the time. So often I'm thoroughly enjoying the work of an apologist I'm reading, then suddenly, I come across some of their arguments that are more rooted in theology, to which I become thoroughly disappointed. 



jwright82 said:


> What really gets philosophers going though is the mystery involved in the doctrine.



I believe this is the case with my friend... He doesn't like to think he has a faith in something that cannot be fully rationalised. Which is sad, because I'm sure the "omnicompetence" so to speak, of human intellect was only really a serious thought after the enlightenment period I'm sure?




Jack K said:


> One of his premises is that when you forget the doctrine of the Trinity you tend to end up thinking God is a self-centered sort of being who, at his core, is mostly interested in taking something from us...



I like this. It makes perfect sense also. To deny the Trinity denies a few fundamental aspects of God's character, as he is in an eternal loving relationship.




py3ak said:


> it makes hash of creation, of the life of Christ, of the doctrine of atonement, of prayer, and other things; but obscuring the true knowledge of God behind a cloud of error must surely be considered a fundamental and grievous error.



These are the things I've concluded, I don't know if there are any more (and there probably is), but these in and of themselves are bad enough. The distortion of these doctrines makes it a big deal for the start...


----------



## earl40 (May 18, 2012)

Supersillymanable said:


> I know that a post quite recently has already been put up about the Trinity, but Dai Li's post jogged my memory about something I wished to ask about.
> 
> *My friend*, who was once quite close to me, though* I was sure he was regenerate and loved God*, seemed to have no qualms about questioning the mere validity of the doctrine of the trinity. *He seemed to think it wasn't essential to the Christian faith,* regardless of whether the Bible actually taught it or not. He didn't necessarily deny it, but neither did he affirm it.
> 
> Though I know the Bible does teach the doctrine of the Trinity, what I wanted to know was, what are the dangers of when people abandon it? What other problems does it then entail? Any thoughts/help?



Here is "the problem". Your friend is not a Christian if he really had no qualms on the nature of God as being essential to faith. So it is good you ued the word "was'. We all should be wiling to tell them the truth that they are not Christians because I personally am tired of the equovation of the Trinity espoused by many supposed called Christians. Now I state this with the upmost humility I can muster, BUT it is hard to do when this subjet comes up, because I get so dern mad when I hear that many think their friend or dad are Chruistians while believeing The Trinity is OK to equivocate on. In other words, get ready to loose a friend beause I have yet to find a way they are the road to hell in a way that will not offend an unbeliever. Of course if he is a believer your conversation on The Trinity will be fruitfull and the results will be imediate. If not be prepared to love your friend to what ever end God leads him towards.


----------



## jwright82 (May 18, 2012)

py3ak said:


> I don't know that I would list this as one of his strong points.



Yeah I wondered about the wisdom of posting that. Ultimately I decided that we shouldn’t hide from a legitimate question. What is certain is that Van Til thought that he was merely building upon the ancient creeds. He believed that his view was implicit in those creeds. Dr. Oliphint teaches that view in his doctrine of God class at WTS Philadelphia. My gut tells me that he is on to something but it is one of those areas that are very controversial, like his dismissal of all traditional apologists. My gut tells me that he is right there as well but I think his thought is a little strong. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with any apologist and defend the faith regardless of their method.




Philip said:


> This is the central point: that God reveals Himself. He reveals Himself as he is: as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He reveals Himself as the Father through the Son by the Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is what distinguishes our understanding of the revelation and being of God as Christian.



Exactly, but always in condescension to our finiteness. 




Supersillymanable said:


> Yes, I see this happen all the time. So often I'm thoroughly enjoying the work of an apologist I'm reading, then suddenly, I come across some of their arguments that are more rooted in theology, to which I become thoroughly disappointed.



Did you mean more rooted in philosophy?




Supersillymanable said:


> I believe this is the case with my friend... He doesn't like to think he has a faith in something that cannot be fully rationalised. Which is sad, because I'm sure the "omnicompetence" so to speak, of human intellect was only really a serious thought after the enlightenment period I'm sure?



Probably, it was definitely the view of modernism though. Some researchers locate this “omnicompetence”, nice word by the way, before. But regardless you are right that it is very enlightenment like.


----------



## py3ak (May 18, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Yeah I wondered about the wisdom of posting that. Ultimately I decided that we shouldn’t hide from a legitimate question. What is certain is that Van Til thought that he was merely building upon the ancient creeds. He believed that his view was implicit in those creeds. Dr. Oliphint teaches that view in his doctrine of God class at WTS Philadelphia. My gut tells me that he is on to something but it is one of those areas that are very controversial, like his dismissal of all traditional apologists.



James, maybe you could start another thread on this point? I'd like to hear some more about this. In what I've heard my instinct is that Dr. Van Til was quite wrong and possibly confused, but my exposure is rather limited.


----------



## jwright82 (May 18, 2012)

py3ak said:


> James, maybe you could start another thread on this point? I'd like to hear some more about this. In what I've heard my instinct is that Dr. Van Til was quite wrong and possibly confused, but my exposure is rather limited.



Ironicly I just did. I didn't think Batman could read minds?


----------



## py3ak (May 18, 2012)

It's important to keep learning new tricks.


----------



## Supersillymanable (May 18, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Did you mean more rooted in philosophy?



Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear. Often when I'm reading a philosophers work that's basically defending the existence of God, etc, they will have a lot of good points, but most of them are philosophical ones. As soon as they move on to say, the problem of evil and suffering, and start making an argument from theology in the Bible, they often move into very Arminian, sometimes downright Pelagian waters, putting forward arguments saying God wanted to protect free-will etc. Often I feel like they're pretty much dispensing with the sovereignty of God, which irritates me so. I guess it's more the parts where they mix their theology and philosophy together, then compromise to make it sound nice to unbelievers. Then again, you could argue that the reason they've gone wrong is because they've started holding philosophy over theology... Whichever, it annoys me a little.




jwright82 said:


> nice word by the way



I stole it from Alistair McGrath . He uses it in his Introduction to Christian Theology. I really like his section on the history of the church and theological development... But that's digressing a little.


----------



## jwright82 (May 18, 2012)

Supersillymanable said:


> Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear. Often when I'm reading a philosophers work that's basically defending the existence of God, etc, they will have a lot of good points, but most of them are philosophical ones. As soon as they move on to say, the problem of evil and suffering, and start making an argument from theology in the Bible, they often move into very Arminian, sometimes downright Pelagian waters, putting forward arguments saying God wanted to protect free-will etc. Often I feel like they're pretty much dispensing with the sovereignty of God, which irritates me so. I guess it's more the parts where they mix their theology and philosophy together, then compromise to make it sound nice to unbelievers. Then again, you could argue that the reason they've gone wrong is because they've started holding philosophy over theology... Whichever, it annoys me a little.



Yeah it annoys me too. I love philosophy, so don’t get me wrong. I just believe in a strict order of relationship between them both.


----------

