Jul
16
2012
Only the Triune God Is Love
We're tempted to take the doctrine of the Trinity for granted. But there is scarcely any belief unaffected when we get the Trinity wrong.
So argue Don Carson, John Piper, and Tim Keller in this new video discussion recorded at a recent meeting of The Gospel Coalition's Council. Pull the thread of the Trinity and the universe unravels. Without the Trinity, grace and glory disappear. So does church unity. And we lose a powerful opportunity to share with unbelievers how the Trinity distinguishes the gospel as the source of love for the world.
Stay tuned to hear Piper's practical application along with Keller's reflections on the social Trinity and egalitarian relationships.
Only the Triune God Is Love from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.
33 Comments
Collin, THANK YOU!
Thanks for putting this up. The Trinity is not valued enough often times but I am glad that we are giving it more exposure in the church as of late.
Once again,The Triune God shines forth: practical, satisfying, true. A big threefold Hallelujah!
Thank you for sharing! A lot of us think that the Trinity is the "weak" spot of our faith (thinking that it is a math problem), unaware that this truth is the heart of our Good News. God is love.
Edward's essay on the trinity fueled my vision of the all-glorious God and was the foundation of my christian hedonism. Thanks for the video, it has been a blessing.
Piper + Carson + Keller. Can't quite call them a Trinity because although they are three in person, they are not one in essence. They are however, one in purpose while being three in person. What does that make them? Surely not a Trinity, perhaps a Trio? A Triumvirate? A Troika? A Triple Threat?
I especially appreciated Piper's personal application and Carson's application to redemption.
The interior life of God is such that the relational is simply and profoundly part of the Imago Dei. Cornelius Plantinga Jr. put it this way, "It’s true that God cannot be God without relationships, but it doesn’t follow that God needs a world in order to have them. After all, God has the endless dance of life within the holy Trinity, the ceaseless exchange of vitality, the infinite expanse of Spirit upon Spirit in superlative, triplicate consciousness." "We may also assume that God wasn’t lonely. No one said, 'It’s not good for God to be alone. So let there be galaxies and jackrabbits and wide-mouth bass.'”
Although Christians joyfully confess that, ”We worship God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons, nor separating the substance” (Athanasian Creed), we also agree that, “He who would seek to understand the trinity is in danger of losing his mind; yet he would deny the trinity is in danger of losing his soul.”
When contemplating truths like the Triune nature of God, I remind myself of a distinction between truths that are beyond my knowledge vs. truths that contradict what I know. The God revealed in Scripture infinitely transcends my finite comprehension. What I know about God, I know because He has condescended to reveal himself to me. Yet I expect that some of His majestic existence will simply be beyond the realm of finite minds (Is. 55:8-9; Job 11:7; Rom. 11:33). Trinity is not truth that contradicts my knowledge but truth that is (in mysterious ways) beyond it.
I think its fair to say that it would be quite surprising for such a truth to originate in human minds. Yet the communitarian nature of God is clearly reflected in the beings He made in His image.
As was stated, the testimony of Scripture in its entirety conclusively leads to a triune understanding of God. Perhaps one of the best way to defend the doctrine of Trinity is to invite people to read the Bible from beginning to end. Although both Muslims and Jews reject the Trinity as Tritheism, the entire witness of Scripture requires a triune understanding of God.
The practical implications of this doctrine relate to who God is, how He works, and how we are to approach Him. The best response to such a revelation of God is worship.
Can one disagree without being disagreeable? Readers might be surprised to know that there are those of us--even someone like me who has a close relationships with literally hundreds of evangelical ministries--who no longer agree with the concept of the Trinity.
Mr. Cornell makes an interesting point: "Perhaps the best way to defend the doctrine of the Trinity is to invite people to read the Bible from beginning to end."
I would agree, with one caveat: Tell that person nothing of the Trinity. Ask them simply to read the Bible and develop their own understanding of God from its words. Personally, I don't care that the word Trinity is not in Scripture, I'm talking concept, understanding, teaching.
My view is that we could invite 1000 people to read the Bible with no preconceived idea of God and not one would find this concept in its pages.
In the discussion, its clear that each of these men have a heart for God. No question.
My question--honestly stated--is whether this doctrine has hindered our evangelism and our understanding of God. Perhaps all of this is much more simple than we've made it over the centuries.
Perhaps God loved us so much that He offered His only Son, Jesus. And we can follow Jesus, who leads us directly to His Father's arms. We can do this because Jesus--who now has all power and authority--literally places the spirit of God in us.
Maybe I'm wrong. And if so one can correct me. But I believe the simplicity of the gospel is its power.
KA,
This statement: 'My view is that we could invite 1000 people to read the Bible with no preconceived idea of God and not one would find this concept in its pages' has not been the historical case. The doctrine of the Trinity was arrived at precisely because many did read and re-read the Scriptures and sought to articulate the relationships they saw between Father, Spirit and Son.
The simplicity you point to is wonderful. Your words: 'Perhaps God loved us so much that He offered His only Son, Jesus. And we can follow Jesus, who leads us directly to His Father's arms. We can do this because Jesus--who now has all power and authority--literally places the spirit of God in us'.
The case being made by these three is that the wonderful, simple, experiential truth that you have articulated falls apart without Trinitarian understanding.
Steve, I don't think that you've answered KA at all. The question is simple. What in scripture would not be understood if the reader had not knowledge of the mystic "trinity"? My contention is very simple: Nothing.
If I wrong, then point the out the problem please. I have only in recent years started questioning the trinity doctrine and the more I learn of and experience life in Christ, the less I find need for this strange doctrine.
Thanks for engaging, Steve. Your comments are well taken.
My thinking is that the truths I pointed out are best articulated within a structure of Jesus being the son of God and not God the son, which is outside the Trinitarian understanding.
Again however, thank you. As Christians we should not run from exploring these subjects. Piper, Keller & Carson--to their credit in my mind--are at least attempting to explain it. I don't have to agree in order to respect that.
As a convinced trinitarian, I agree that the concept of trinity wouldn't just pop out at the average reader of Scripture. That being said, once understood, the doctrine seems unavoidable to me. Evangelism definitely IS hindered without a proper understanding of God as revealed in Scripture. The fact that Jesus is eternally divine and most fully God (Yahweh) is easy enough to show from Scripture. The concept of the divinity of the Holy Spirit as a separate PERSON in the trinity is definitley more subtle in Scripture but is there nonetheless.
What specific aspect of "trinity" do you reject? That might narrow down the issue that you have risen.
Thanks Joe.
A key point you make: "Evangelism definitely IS hindered without a proper understanding of God as revealed in Scripture."
I would agree, wholeheartedly. My conclusion however, is different. I think our evangelism today is hindered by the Trinity.
My question: Did Peter need to explain the Trinity in order to preach a message that is likely the most effective evangelistic call of all time?
Did other first century Christians need the trinity, teach the trinity or explain the trinity in their defenses of God and His son Jesus?
To me, this is not about "rejecting" the trinity, as much as it is about embracing the first century faith of the original apostles. I think by adding the Trinity over the early centuries--along with perhaps other doctrines--we lost the power of the gospel.
It's an opinion, no more. People are free to disagree--and I certainly respect your views. And I appreciate your allowing me to throw mine into the mix. As Christians in pursuit of an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ we can do no less.
Ka,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
You wrote, "I think our evangelism today is hindered by the Trinity.
My question: Did Peter need to explain the Trinity in order to preach a message that is likely the most effective evangelistic call of all time?"
My response would be that Peter most certainly preached the triune God. Especially if the trinity is truth. Peter clearly preached concnerning three divine persons in Acts 2. He attributes salvation and forgiveness of sins to Jesus. He attributes divine presence to the Holy Spirit.
The point is this, if the trinity is a proper understanding of God's being, then of course Peter preached the trinity. And of course early Christians who were being faithful to a correct understanding of God's being preached the trinity. The issue is what is true concerning God's being and has the trinity been revealed in Scripture or not. I believe that it has clearly been revealed in Scripture. You of course believe otherwise, but that is where the real question lies. What specific aspect of trinity do you reject and why? You speak of an intimate relationship with Jesus. I would say that, if the trinitarian understanding is incorrect, intimacy and worship of Jesus would be idolatry because you would be worshipping the creature instead of the creator. Of course, I don't believe that Jesus was created. I believe that he is creator and therefore worthy of our worship.
Thank you again, Joe.
My thoughts are three-fold:
To your comment, "Peter clearly preached concerning three divine persons in Acts 2."
If you and I had been there, I don't think we would have come away with any thought of a triune God or three divine persons. The record of his message says nothing in this regard, so unless we include our assumptions we have to admit that we would have heard nothing of a co-equal, co-powerful, co-eternal Godhead. Yet 3,000 were saved--without any knowledge of the trinity.
Another reason I ultimately set aside the trinity: I see nowhere in Scripture where Jesus or the apostles taught it, explained it, discussed it, lived it . . . or required belief in this doctrine as requisite for salvation.
I believe if we discussed this concept with Paul, Peter or others today, their response would be, "What?"
Finally, I'd say the early Christians taught something much different: One God, one way (Jesus' sacrificial death on our behalf), and that Jesus was both the literal son of God uniquely born of a virgin and fully one of us in every way.
If someone wants to kick this around off-site they can click on my handle and find my personal email rather quickly. And of course, I am happy to respond on here. This has been a challenging discussion for me anyway, and a good one.
Joe, it seems to me that your argument for the "truth of the trinity" is based on the assumption that it is so. This is however not evident in scripture. Trinitarianism is at best a deduction, no more. It's is hard, if not impossible, to state it as an absolute truth since there is no solid scriptural evidence for it.
My question still stands. What is scripture is not understood by the lack of introducing the trinity?
I'm not at all disputing the divinity of Christ. However, just because I'm human and my son is human it does not mean that we are somehow mystically one. What it does mean, is that my son is of the same substance that me and he even looks, talks and acts like me in most ways. He is just not the same person as me though.
On the other hand, scripture teaches that we must be known by our unity, even so far as stating that a man & his wife should become "one flesh". If Jesus seriously rebuked the Pharisees for requiring their followers to keep laws and live in a way they themselves were not prepared to do, then surely God would be like the Pharisees if he required from us to be in unity, yet he is automagically in a triune unity with his Son and his Spirit?
It seems to me the Father and his Spirit are not distinct. Jesus also alludes to that when he says only the Spirit knows the heart of the Father. That is not true for Jesus however. He makes it quite clear that he is not the same person as the Father and doesn't know everything the Father knows. He does however state that he is in unity with the Father.
If we apply Occam's Razor, then the Trinity is a serious over-complication of the matter. I have a problem with than, since, like KA says, it complicates the Gospel and makes the Good News thus less good.
Does anyone know what Piper means (at 5:28) when he says: "The love standing between the Father & the Son with such completeness that it embodies & becomes He, the Holy Spirit?"
I've heard him give this Edwardsian view of the Trinity before and it comes across like the Third Person is just the embodiment of love between the Father & Son, but also a love that is created because of that love between the Two. Now I know that he CAN'T be meaning that, but just wondering if there's a better place to get this Edwardsian view.
It is the ETERNAL love of God for the ETERNAL image of God. God's perfection araises in that He has always been rejoicing in His total perfections.
Eduardo, if God then has always been perfect, what does Proverbs 8:22-26 then mean (speaking of the personification of wisdom)?
22 The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,[c][d]
before his deeds of old;
23 I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the world or its fields
or any of the dust of the earth. (NIV)
Doesn't this clearly seem to say that the first thing God did for himself was to bring forth wisdom? In other words that God has not always been as he was when he started creating?
(8:22) The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
(8:23) I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
(8:24) When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
(8:25) Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
(8:26) While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
(8:27) When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
(8:28) When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
(Prov. 8:22-28 KJV
This passage states the eternality of Wisdom.
The KJV is often a really dubious translation, but then so is the NIV! :-)
Without arguing about the merits and failures of each, verse 25 makes it quite clear that wisdom was not forever or eternal: it was brought forth or birthed (literal meaning).
Of course that opens another can of worms, since most of trinity doctrine, at least Calvin and Augustine's ideas about it, are founded on eternity presumptions which are not substantiated and have been disproven repeatedly.
I suppose this could be considered straying from the topic at hand, although somehow this is like a web. Unravel the "eternal" hypothesis, them many other theories fall apart too. And this, in seems, includes trinitarianism. We just don't need it.
thankful to God for His unsearchable greatness!; thankful too for these 3 faithful, passionate leaders; joining in with Steve from Canada (in comment above) - how ‘bout ‘trillium’ treasure… planted in the house of the LORD, they will flourish in the courts of our God!
[...] Pull the thread of the Trinity and the whole universe unravels. So argue Don Carson, John Piper, and Tim Keller in this new video discussion recorded at a recent meeting of The Gospel Coalition’s Council. View the video at Only the Triune God Is Love. [...]
Can someone please explain to me why all the arguments, remarks, comments in their entirety in this discussion require a trinity? It's not clear at all.
Tim Kellar opens the talk by claiming that the trinity is universally accepted in the Christian Church. Surely he cannot be ignorant of the serious work of those that are disputing this? Then the talk continues along the same lines as some infamous other circular arguments: We know the Bible is true because it says so. Surely John Piper knows that the greek for John 1:1 shows that this cannot be used "prove" the Son is the same as the Father.
I admire all three these men and the work they do and have done, so I'm showing contempt for them. On the contrary. I am however doing what the Bereans where commended for in Acts 17:11 by checking whether what is being said "checks out" so to speak.
I would like to re-issue the challenge: Show me at least two clear instances of scripture that requires the trinity. I'm not looking for proof that Christ is divine (e.i people are human but distict, The Father and the Son are divine, but distinct). There is no question about that in my mind. Also don't quote me scriptures that describe the unity between the Father and his Son (the Father and I are one - John 20:10). After all, that is what Jesus expects of us, so, as John Piper points out quite correctly, the presence of the Spirit of the Father in us makes us capable of loving and becoming one with our brothers and sisters and also with the Father and his Son (1 Cor 15.28). I see this much like the Father's ever expanding family, of whom the Son was the first, as scriptures clearly states.
Doesn't anyone have some solid answer for me here? Why should be assume a Trinity? For what reason? Surely just because we want to is not good enough?
See my post below.
I have read your post, Phillip, and was hoping for some clarity, but you don't provide any. It makes no sense to say we must assume or presuppose a trinity unless we have a compelling reason for it. As I have argued previously in this discussion: Why introduce complexity when it isn't needed? To simply say that we can't understand the nature of the trinity, so we have to accept that this is the way it is, is not sensible.
What is in the scriptures that demands that we have trinity model of the divine persons? What in scripture cannot be understood in a model of a divine Father (whose Spirit is not distinct from his being), who has a divine Son, the first born of many siblings and is the initiation of the Father's ever expanding family of believers? I use the term "model", since we don't know enough to say that this is the way it is for certain, so we construct a model of understanding for ourselves. As we learn more and more is revealed, we adjust that model, although this is not science per se.
You say: "God is Trinitarian in character" Why?
You say: "God created humanity in “Their image” (Gen. 1:26), and because God's Trinitarianism is the most unique aspect of God's person(s), the "image" in which God created humanity is a reflection of His Trinitarian character." I ask, what about "Their image" makes it 3-in-1? That's a really shaky basis for such a grand presupposition.
The you say: "Therefore, to deny or ignore the Trinity ..." but you haven't established anything.
Can one start without a presupposition and arrive at the trinity theory from scripture or can't one? If the former, then those that choose to believe in trinity are doing so because of good reason, but if the latter, then we should move away from this idea, don't you think?
Roland, it is not that I have failed to provide clarity, but that you do not see it. Clearly, when it comes to the Trinity, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. This statement is not dig or a dis or a put down of any kind. It is simply a statement of fact that you actually agree with.
There are many good reasons to assume the trinity, but the first and foremost is that the personhood of the Holy Spirit cannot be accepted apart from the reality of the Trinity. Apart from the actual Personhood of the Holy Spirit He becomes no more than team spirit, where the whole team pulls together in corporate unity.
Biblical arguments for the existence of the Trinity are plentiful. So, there is no reason to rehash those arguments here. If you want to know, rather than just wanting to argue, you can find a wealth of literature.
There is much in Scripture that cannot be understood with a model of a divine Father whose Spirit is not distinct from his being, as you put it. But it cannot be seen with objective analysis, as I said. No argument can be made to prove the reality of the Trinity to you, just as no argument can be definitively made to prove your own existence. You cannot prove what you are. Rather, you must be experienced to be known. The same is true for the Holy Spirit.
Why is God Trinitarian? I don’t have sufficient hubris to ask that question, must less to answer it. Why is the sky blue? Why do you have two eyes, but only one nose? Why is your brain bifurcated? Sheesh! The problem with these kinds of questions is that they stand objectively over what they seek to analyze. But you and I (humanity) do not stand over God objectively, but arsy varsy. If there is any objectivity to be had, God has it. Not us. The secret of knowledge is not getting all of our questions answered, but knowing which questions are worth answering.
God’s threeness, like His oneness, is not numerical, but analogical. It suggests that His character, like the structure of reality itself, is best expressed as unity in diversity. There are three basic theological or philosophical positions: 1) monotheism or unitarianism, 2) dualism or Zoroastrianism, and 3) trinitarianism. Only trinitarianism solves the philosophical problem of the “one and the many,” which has led to the development of science and technology.
I realize that I am simply asserting these things, rather than arguing them out. But, seriously, do you expect a sufficient argument of this kind of thing in blog comments? You will have to work a little harder than that. But don’t blame me, truth is complex, far more complex than any of our ancestors could ever imagine. The answers are all there if you really want an answer.
But, as we told out kids as they were growing up, “You gotta wanna.”
Thanks, Phllip, I appreciate your response. You're partially correct when you say that I don't know what I'm talking about, but that is exactly why I'm asking. This is not the first place I have asked and certainly not the last.
I grew up not doubting the trinity doctrine at all, but have found many really poor and wrong doctrines being perpetrated as truth by churches and for various or unknown reasons. My motto may be Act 17:11. Therefor I have started doing my own deeper research and reading a lot. I have read Calvin on the trinity for example and have found that much of his arguments are based on assumptions that have been shown incorrect (but that doesn't phase trinity adherents from still believing it anyway). I have also read critical work on this obviously.
Yes, there are apparently biblical arguments for the trinity, but many are just not sustainable. (Take Gen 1:26 argument for example, neatly shown here http://www.israelofgod.org/genesis1.htm for what it really is by someone that it qualified to make that assessment)
Can you please point to me work you consider compelling that points out why the trinity view is the only one that holds true for all of scripture? You bet "I wanna"! And not just since yesterday. Yes, truth is hard to find. But letting go of errors is just as hard. That's why I'm on a quest to learn and then share with others what I have found. I will not blithely accept what I read though and will scrutinise the details, until I find enough light on the matter.
[...] The Gospel Coalition blog, a video entitled “Only the Triune God is Love” (about which Joel Walden wrote a post last week) captured my interest. My thinking was [...]
[...] Listen to Piper, Carson & Keller have a very insightful discussion on the trinity. [...]
What people miss when they do not assume the reality of the Trinity is the true character of God.
God is Trinitarian in character. God created humanity in “Their image” (Gen. 1:26), and because God's Trinitarianism is the most unique aspect of God's person(s), the "image" in which God created humanity is a reflection of His Trinitarian character. Therefore, to deny or ignore the Trinity is to miss the most unique aspect of God's character, and the reflection of that uniqueness in one's own character.
Without the Trinity, the character of God cannot be adequately known, and neither can the truth of one's own character. To fail to adequately know the character of God is to fail to truly love Him. And to fail to adequately know the truth of one's own character (not just that it is a dim reflection of God's character, but how it is such a reflection) results in the failure to adequately love one's self and one's neighbor.
The Trinity is not hard to understand. What has made it hard is that the early church fathers drug it through the mud of Greek philosophy, and "essentially" lost it in abstraction (pun intended). That said, however, the Trinity is not an "object" of knowledge that can be dissected in order to understand. He (the Trinity) cannot be known until He is know subjectively.
Rather, the truth (or doctrine) of the Trinity is an assumption or presupposition. How so? When the Trinity is known subjectively, His reality becomes an assumption, presupposition or a contextual reality of one’s own existence. We don’t go around proving our own existence. We simply assert it and assume it because it is obvious. The same thing is true about the Person of the Trinity. His reality and identity are caught up in our own reality and identity such that He becomes so much a part of who we are that we find it cumbersome and unnecessary to attest to His presence and reality.
And those who deny Him or who deny His reality, actually do not know what they are talking about. They “do not know” Him, though they live and move and have their own being in Him.
Anyway, I write a lot about the Trinity in my books, should you be interested – http://www.pilgrim-platform.org/books/
Roland,
Thanks for your serious concern.
I completely understand your quest for the truth. I have been on a similar path for a very long time, and have seriously engaged many traditions without and within Christianity. And I agree that churches are teaching all sorts of nonsense. And I’m glad that you seem to understand that God’s truth is not dependent upon nor effected by the nonsense that claims to be God’s truth.
Can I recommend some book that will convince you of the reality of the Trinity? No, but not because there are no such books, but because books and logical arguments cannot reveal the reality of the Trinity. I can only assure you that you yourself do not actually (functionally and practically) doubt the reality of the Trinity, you only misapprehend Him (Acts 17:28). There is no life apart from Him, and you appear to be alive. (I’m not toying with you, but am quite serious about this.)
In my first post I said, “the Trinity is not an ‘object’ of knowledge that can be dissected in order to understand. He (the Trinity) cannot be known until He is know subjectively.” You have not mentioned this in your responses, which suggests that you have not “heard” it yet.
The Trinity is not a fact like other facts in the world. He functions like Aristotle’s Prime Mover, or biblically He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end (telos—purpose). He is known by induction not deduction (look carefully at the definitions of these words). He is not the conclusion of a particular argument, but the very axiom of predication itself. He is the object of faith, not a reasonable conclusion (though all reasoning absolutely depends upon His reality). I’m not waxing mystical here, but am trying to point to the source and foundation of our human context.
When I first read the Bible I ran into those various verses that caused me to ask, “How can that be true?” The healings, miracles and mysteries of Scripture contradict common sense. It led me to doubt my assumed understanding of reality that came from my senses and various conclusions about reality based upon them. In fact, Scripture forces people to choose whether to trust IT or to trust themselves. Do I choose to make my own perspective objective, or do I allow God’s perspective to be objective (Matt. 6:24). For whatever reason, it made sense to me to doubt myself (my objectivity) and to trust God’s. I knew that I didn’t know.
Unlike Descartes, who famously said, “I think, therefore I am.” I thought, “I doubt myself, therefore I must believe an other.” At that point, I began to take the question (How can the Bible be true?) seriously. Rather than doubt it, I began to look for a perspective from which it could actually be completely true. Decades later I found that, while I could not deduce the reality of the Trinity (God in the fullness of His character), He had inducted me. I had been filled with sense that was common only to other believers, even though the vast majority of them were so wrong about so many things. Their various doctrinal wrongness was dwarfed by the rightness of their simple belief. They trusted in what they could not understand—as do I, and were trying their best to explain it—as am I.
If this makes sense to you, you might try my book on Colossians, subtitled “Christos Singularis,” which is an alternative understanding of the motto of the Reformation, Solas Christos. If Christ is God, then Christ is Father, Son and Holy Spirit—but how can that be? In the Godhead Itself there is unity in the midst of plurality, both unity and diversity of identity.
Just who do you think you are? And who do you think God is (John 15-17)? Which would be more correct: Your understanding of me, or my understanding of me?