Mrs. C at Homeschool and Etc. asks, “What do you think about this issue?“
Up until several years ago, I would have affirmed and believed that I held an orthodox view of the Trinity. I still think I do, but I suspect many, many of my readers would disagree with me. I have been a Christian for years, but, when I worked full time and was a single mom, I didn’t prioritize spending time pondering the deeper issues of theology. So, it is only in the last several years that I began to dig deeper into the Scriptures. I started studying the Bible with the same intense commitment I used to study pathophysiology. The other thing that made me realize that I don’t think like many of my readers is that I began studying history with Marissa.
Last year when we were studying art from the 15th Century I ran across Rublev’s Trinity. I immediately knew that this icon didn’t represent my understanding of the Trinity.
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” Deuteronomy 6:4,5 (NAS)
No way could I identify with this painting in light of my understanding of God. This photo depicts three separate and distinct beings. In my opinion, the revealed word of God clearly teaches that there is only one God. I do not believe that this is just an Old Testament truth. Jesus says, “The person that has seen me has seen the Father too” or even clearer, “I and the Father are one.” The early Jewish believers most certainly understood that God, the LORD is one. From church history, the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) declared Jesus was the same substance (and not of similar substance) as the Father. Given that it was birthed in a pagan society with many gods, the early church recognized the “oneness” of God as an important part of their doctrinal stance.
The Great Schism that occurred between the Eastern and Western Christianity in 1054 was partly due to the Roman Catholic Church adding the filoque clause to the Nicene Creed. This clause asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Tradition is that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone, a single source. I have heard those who assert that the filoque clause is required argue that without and the Son the Nicene Creed sets up a hierarchy between God the Father and God the Son. Jesus becomes eternally a servant to God rather than a co-eternal, co-equal member of the Godhead. But, since I assume a “oneness,” I much prefer the Nicene Creed without the filoque clause; it is redundant, asserting that God and God is the source of God’s spirit.
The Western church’s view of the Trinity separates God into three separate and distinct beings too. Consider this painting by Hendrick van Balen who lived about 100 years after Rublev. The photo represents God and Jesus with a physical body. The Holy Spirit is seen as a dove. How could I have gotten the Trinity so wrong? Surely (I thought) when I look more deeply into Protestant teaching, I would learn that “my” religion got God right! I know that sounds arrogant, but that was what I thought. I didn’t find this to be true. My church doesn’t use icons or art to depict the Godhead. Our truths are communicated in words and ideas. And, I found that the Trinity is perhaps the poorest explained of all points of theology. As I read author after author assert, “The Bible clearly demonstrates,” I thought, “It does no such thing!” In protestant orthodoxy, God is described as one God in three persons with three separate and distinct personalities. So, these works of art, the ones I looked at and said, “Uh, that’s not what I believe,” exactly, pictorially depict the ideas of the Trinity that I read in literature from my own congregation.
When I studied the Trinity in terms of God’s oneness, I read some writers who described God as an apple with core, flesh and skin; three in one. Others compared the Trinity to a person who has a body, soul and spirit. Many graphics are available that depict the Trinity as a triangle; a single shape with three sides. Yet, other theologians described God in terms of a man who is a father, a son and grandfather. My personal favorite likened God to H2O, water, the same substance that eternally and simultaneously exists as vapor, water and ice.
While I liked this analogy the best, it is incomplete. Jesus wasn’t just God walking around in a physical body. He is not a Christianized view of a pagan demi-God — half-God and half-man. Somehow, mystically, he was fully God and fully man. Neither the Father or the Holy Spirit are revealed as having physical bodies. This understanding preserves that. Oh, and can my mind chew on the concept of water. Water is absolutely essential to life. Life could not exist in the absence of water. There are a whole lot of biblical references to cleansing and water. Why, there was even a water basin in the Tabernacle. And, do I need to remind my readers of the waters of baptism?
Whatever the case, I don’t think I get to be considered orthodox anymore.
13 responses so far ↓
Mrs. C // 6 May 2008 at 5:37 am |
Wow, thanks for posting this! I’m not sure theologians are ever going to be able to put God “in a box.” Um, let alone get to paint a picture of him posing with the Holy Spirit LOL!
It looks like I’m going to want to browse the “automatically generated” links and see if they’re any good.
debd // 6 May 2008 at 6:25 am |
Well, Rublev’s icon was not originally call “The Trinity” it is called “The Hospitality of Abraham”. It depicts the Trinity as it was told in Genesis. Some will describe this icon as “depicting a type of Trinity”. It is not an actual representation (or photograph) of the Trinity any more than the water, ice, vapor picture. In Orthodoxy, God is forbidden to be depicted (unlike the van Balen painting). Occasionally we’ll see a Hand coming from heaven and in Rublev’s icon as one of the Visitors of Abraham. This is because God revealed Himself in Jesus as a man and the Holy Spirit as fire or a dove, but “no one can see God and live.”
In your studies, did you read St. Gregory the Theologian’s 5 Sermons on the Trinity, called “Triadica”? He wrote it in response to yet another Arian controversy in the late 300’s. I’ve not read it myself, but want to, so I probably shouldn’t be suggesting to you something I haven’t read myself. However, I’ve heard several studies on the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity and all the lecturer’s quoted St. Gregory.
I am confused as to why you don’t think you can be orthodox anymore? All of us ponder, question and chew on ideas.
Deb, Thanks for explaining Rublev’s Trinity to me. I know that you had told me once that since God had not been revealed as a man he wasn’t presented as one. I was confused by the icon. I haven’t read Triadica, but I will. Perhaps I cannot be considered “orthodox” Protestant anymore. It does not make sense that God could be three separate persons with three distinct personalities and still be one. But, that seems to be the most common way the Trinity is defined in Protestant Theology. The exception is the “Oneness” groups who describe Jesus is God, Jesus is Son and Jesus is Spirit — and most Protestant theologians think this position is heretical. I suspect my understanding of God is Father, God is Son and God is Spirit is closer to that group than many Protestants would be comfortable with.
In the story in Genesis, I have always been taught that the visitors were two angels and Christ.
Acceptance-with-Joy // 6 May 2008 at 9:23 am |
Actually the most confusing explanation of the Trinity was based upon making up a new part of speech, a uniplural. A word that is a uniplural is a word that by its very definition implies more than one (for example, family, group, club, school). A uniplural seems to be a made up part of speech whose sole purpose is to describe God as “One” made up of three.
It was presented as if this concept was “new” to Christianity. How new is the idea of a pantheon? Okay, a pantheon of three rather than many was new. But, not really ~
debd // 6 May 2008 at 10:59 am |
In the story in Genesis, I have always been taught that the visitors were two angels and Christ. Yes, that is what I had been taught previously as well. I don’t know what the Orthodox would say to that except perhaps it is both/and. Orthodox tend toward the expansive rather than minimalistic explanations.
I’ve been thinking about your entry all morning and doing more studying. I think I may end up with my own blog entry on it. This is only a problem because whenever I start sinking my teeth into something its hard to let go until I’m finished. So, other things – - like homeschooling, start to fall to the wayside.
Do you know where I can get a copy of St. Gregory the Theologian’s 5 Triadica? I googled it and got many hits, but none of them were th full texts. I thought I would do more searching later. I too have to do home schooling. It really sometimes interferes with what I want to do.
Sombra // 6 May 2008 at 12:59 pm |
Any chance you’ve seen the book Too Long In The Sun? http://www.toolong.com/index.htm
debd // 6 May 2008 at 8:24 pm |
Julie you asked: “Do you know where I can get a copy of St. Gregory the Theologian’s 5 Triadica?”
It took me a bit to find too, but you can get it from Amazon:
St. Gregory’s 5 Orations Book
It seems that the title has many versions and from the review it looks like it might be a bit of a plow.
Barbara // 7 May 2008 at 2:16 pm |
I saw this quote just after reading this post when I opened a new tab. The quote was in the banner of another blog. I thought it applied to this discussion..
“You can drown understanding in facts.”
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) God and the World
No, but I have a blog. « Shanan Trail // 9 May 2008 at 8:41 am |
[...] response to my recent post on the Trinity, Barbara wrote, “You can drown understanding in facts.” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) God [...]
writeathome // 13 May 2008 at 9:17 pm |
Very interesting subject and one we are currently studying with our kids in our Tuesday night Bible study. Might I recommend a booklet to you? It’ called Is Jesus In The Godhead Or Is The Godhead In Jesus? It’s a great little booklet that sells for $5. Here is a link to a website that carries it if you’re interested.
http://www.ebmoneness.com/catalog/item/2047060/1479189.htm
Blessings to you and Happy Blogiversary!
Carol
Adam Pastor // 20 May 2008 at 5:21 pm |
Greetings
On the subject of the trinity,
I recommend this video:
The Human Jesus
Take a couple of hours to watch it; and prayerfully it will aid you to reconsider “The Trinity”
Yours In Messiah
Adam Pastor
Jan Kerkhof // 20 June 2008 at 3:28 pm |
you start with Rublev’s icon, and that’s a good thing (maybe even the best) to start with.
But you have to keep in mind that this piece of art is so rim-filled with symbols that you have to let it sink deep into your mind and thoughts to really understand what it tries to tell you.
For instance: the three persons have identical faces. Thus expressing that they are the same. You just can’t tell which one is who by a look at their face: even if they represent a different part of God, they still remain the same being. Which part of God they represent is symbolised by their gestures and their clothings. Combined together they contain everything that life means, they together form the one complete and whole God himself.
Even the way the scene is pictured is a symbol: the figures can be contained by a perfect circle, meaning that God is complete and perfect. In the circle you can depict a triangle (three sides, again that number three) which is slightly open at the bottom, inviting you to enter the divine assembly…
There is so much more to tell about and by this magnificent work, it would take me much too long to explain it all here. But if you search enough I am sure you’ll be able to find more answers to this picture than you ever expected.
Joe // 19 July 2008 at 8:09 pm |
Consider that you have an image of yourself – not just the physical one in the mirror, but how you think of yourself. Because man is sinful he generally thinks more highly of himself than he ought to think – his image of himself is not true.
However, God has an image of Himself and it is a perfect image of who He is. His image of Himself is an express image, an exact representation (Heb. 1:3) God’s image of Himself is so pure, true, perfect that the image is of the same substance as God, not created. That image is His Son, Jesus Christ (Col. 1:15; II Cor. 4:4).
God delights in, loves, adores His Son and the Son delights in, loves, adores the Father. In all eternity there has been a love fest between the Father and the Son. The love, adoration, delight, joy, etc. that flows from one to the other is not something created but its essence is of God. It proceeds from each one to the other. This proceeding of love, adoration, delight, joy etc. is eternal between the Father and Son and is such of God that it is the third person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit. Note in Scripture that it is said that the Father loves the Son and vice versa. But it is never said that either of them loves the Holy Spirit or the Spirit loves them. The Holy Spirit is that love between the Father and the Son. For further insight into the trinity I suggest searching up a copy of Jonathan Edward”s Essay on the Trinity.
V. Rev. Fr. Athanasius Wilson // 24 January 2009 at 9:03 am |
I am an Orthodox priest. I would like to suggest to you that the Jews of the Old Covenant knew that God was one, a singularity, they thought. Jesus reveals himself as being one with the Father. The Holy Spirit is the Lord who is the Spirit of the Lord. These all can be found in Holy Scripture. The Church baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, not the names of. The Scriptures are full of the worship of Jesus by those healed by him, a worship which he never refused. So briefly let me say, that the Church knew that the Father was God as the Jews did. They also worshiped the Son as God, a witness confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit giving them the experience of God’s presence in Holy Baptism. So the Church had three persons whom they experienced as God, yet knew that God is One God. Whether one likes it, or understands it, the Church was left with three persons as God and One God. This was finally codefied at Nicea in the first ecumenical council. If one believes that Jesus is not God, then it would be idolatrous to worship him, and the Jews don’t. If one believes that the Spirit they received in Holy Baptism is not God, then they have not experienced God but the presence of an angel, or some other lesser spirit. All of this is a very brief attempt to explain why the Church worships one God in three persons.