The Forgotten Trinity (4 page)

BUT CAN YOU DEFINE THE UNDEFINABLE?

Before we present a definition of the Trinity, it is important to point
out that we face a real difficulty right at the start: language itself. Christians have struggled for centuries to express, within the limitations of
human language, the unique revelation God makes of His mode of
existence. We struggle because language is a finite means of communication. Finite minds are trying to express in words infinite truths. At
times we simply cannot "say" what we need to say to adequately express the grandeur that is our God.

Humans communicate by means of examples. When little children
start asking the endless series of questions that suggest themselves to
little minds, we often find ourselves using analogies and examples in
our replies. When asked what a new food tastes like, we compare it to
known foods in the child's life. We might say, "It tastes a little bit like
crackers with honey on them," knowing the child has had crackers with
honey. That may not be exactly what it tastes like, but they get the idea.
As their "database" of knowledge grows, so we can expand our anal ogies. We never escape this element of our language. When we encounter new thoughts, new ideas, it is natural for us to fit them into
preexisting categories by comparing them with past experiences or
facts.

This process works just fine for most things. But for unique things,
it doesn't. If something is truly unique, it cannot be compared to anything else, at least not without introducing some element of error. One
might be able to draw a parallel to a certain aspect of the truly unique
thing, but if it's really unique, the analogy will be limited, and, if
pressed too far, downright erroneous. But since we don't encounter
too many completely unique things in our lives, we manage to get
along.

The problem is, of course, God is completely unique. He is God,
and there is no other. He is totally unlike anything else, and as He
frequently reminds us, "To whom then will you liken Me?" (Isaiah
40:25). There is no answer to that question, because to compare God
to anything in the created order is, in the final analysis, to deny His
uniqueness. When we say, "God is like ..." we are treading on dangerous ground. Yes, we might be able to illustrate a certain aspect of
God's being in this way, but in every instance the analogy, if pushed
far enough, is going to break down.

Our language fails us in two other ways as well. First, our language
is based upon time. We speak of the past, the present, and the future.
As we will see in the next chapter, God is not limited to time as we
are. Thus, when we speak of Him with our language, we are forced to
place misleading limitations upon His being. This often causes real
problems for us in discussing His triune nature, for we slip into the
all-too-human mode of thinking as time-based, time-limited creatures.

The second way in which our language fails us has to do with what
I call "excess baggage." Words often carry with them "baggage" that
has become attached to the meaning of a word. The way we use the
word may cause us to conjure up particular mental images every time
we hear it. The most glaring example of this is the word "person," a
word that is often used when discussing the Trinity. When we use the word "person," we attach to it all sorts of "baggage" that comes from
our own personal experiences. We think of a physical body, an individual, separate from everyone else. We think of a spatial location,
physical attributes like height, weight, age-all things associated with
our common use of the word "person." When we use this word to
describe a divine person (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit), we tend to drag
along with it the "baggage" that comes from our common use of the
term in everyday life. Many people, upon hearing the word "person"
used of the Father, for example, conjure up an image of a kind old
grandfatherly figure who is the "person" of the Father. He's separate,
different, limited-everything we think of when we think of the term
"person." It will be our task (and it is a difficult one!) to labor to separate such "baggage" from our thinking and use such terms in very
specific, limited ways so as to avoid unneeded confusion.

A BASIC DEFINITION

It is time to lay down a basic, fundamental definition of the Trinity.
At the end of our study we will look a little closer at this definition,
expand upon it some, and examine a few of the issues it raises.

But we need a short, succinct, accurate definition to start with.
Here it is:

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally
three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

You would think that a belief that can be expressed in one sentence
would be fairly simple as a result, but such would be a mistake. I have
chosen my words very carefully. Each is very important, each has a
specific function. More importantly, I have avoided certain words, too.
Let's look briefly at some of the major issues presented by this definition.

First, the doctrine rests completely upon the truth of the first
clause: there is only one God. "The one Being that is God" carries
within it a tremendous amount of information. It not only asserts that there is only one God-the historic belief, shared by Christians and
Jews known as monotheism-but it also insists that God's "Being"
(capitalized so as to contrast it with the term "persons" found in the
next clause) is one, unique, undivided, indivisible. As you can see already, there is a lot packed into each phrase. We will "unpack" all of
this in time. But for now, the emphasis of the first clause is monotheism
and the assertion that there is only one true God.

Second, the definition insists that there are three divine persons.
Note immediately that we are not saying there are three Beings that
are one Being, or three persons that are one person. Such would be
self-contradictory. I emphasize this because, most often, this is the misrepresentation of the doctrine that is commonly found in the literature
of various religions that deny the Trinity. The second clause speaks of
three divine persons, not three divine Beings. As I warned before, we
must not succumb to the temptation to read the term "person" as if
we are talking about finite, self-contained human beings. What "person" means when we speak of the Trinity is quite different than when
we speak of creatures such as ourselves. These divine persons are identified in the last clause as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute
(CRI), has often expressed this point in a wonderfully simple and clear
way: when speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking
about one what and three who's. The one what is the Being or essence
of God; the three who's are the Father, Son, and Spirit. We dare not
mix up the what's and who's regarding the Trinity.

Thirdly, we are told that the relationship among these divine persons is eternal. They have eternally existed in this unique relationship.
Each of the persons is said to be eternal, each is said to be coequal with
the others as to their divine nature. Each fully shares the one Being
that is God. The Father is not 1/3 of God, the Son Y3 of God, the Spirit
1/3 of God. Each is fully God, coequal with the others, and that eternally. There never was a time when the Father was not the Father; never
a time when the Son was not the Son; never a time when the Spirit was
not the Spirit. Their relationship is eternal, not in the sense of having been for a long time, but existing, in fact, outside the realm of time
itself.

The three foundations of the Trinity, then, are already clearly visible. Here they are:

These three foundations not only provide the grounds upon which the
Trinity is based, they explain to us why Christians who accept all of the
Bible believe this doctrine. This is very important. Often the discussions
Christians have with others about the Trinity flounder and go in circles
because we do not identify these three truths as biblical teachings.
When someone says, "How can you claim to only believe the Bible,
when you use terms like `Trinity' that don't appear in the Bible?" we
must be quick to point out that we are forced to do so by the teaching
of the Bible itself on these three points. Every error and heresy on this
doctrine will find its origin in a denial of one or more of these truths.

THE THREE FOUNDATIONS AND THE BIBLE

This book is based upon establishing, as divine truths, plainly revealed in Scripture, the three foundations listed above. I do not approach the Trinity as a philosophical issue or a theological speculation
that may interest a person for a while. I approach the Trinity as a revealed truth. I do not believe in the Trinity because it is "traditional"
to do so. I believe in it for the same reason Athanasius' did so long
ago: the Scriptures compel me to this conclusion. I cannot hold the
Bible in my hand while denying the Trinity. There is a fundamental
contradiction there. The Trinity is a doctrine for Bible-believing people.

It is quite common for those who deny the Trinity to make Christians feel as if they are somehow inconsistent in believing in a doctrine
that is not "biblical." "Where do you find the word `Trinity' in the
Bible?" they ask. Yet just the opposite is the case. The only folks who are truly biblical are those who believe all the Bible has to say on a
given topic. If I believe everything the Bible says about topic X and use
a term not found in the Bible to describe the full teaching of Scripture
on that point, am I not being more truthful to the Word than someone
who limits themselves to only biblical terms, but rejects some aspect
of God's revelation? Christians believe in the Trinity not because the
term itself is given in some creedlike form in the text of Scripture.
Instead, they believe in the Trinity because the Bible, taken in its completeness, accepted as a self-consistent revelation of God, teaches that
there is one Being of God (Foundation One) that is shared fully (Foundation Three) by three divine persons (Foundation Two), the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is, therefore, no contradiction between being a "Bible believer" and holding to the Trinity. The one leads
naturally, and inevitably, to the other.

The majority of this work will demonstrate from the text of Scripture each of the three foundational truths that lead us inexorably to
the historic doctrine of the Trinity. After we have established these
truths, we will briefly expand upon our definition. While it is sufficient
to explain the doctrine in broad terms, Christian theologians over the
centuries have found it necessary to carefully explain various elements
of the doctrine in greater depth. Most of this more technical discussion
has been to safeguard each of the three foundations from subtle, yet
destructive, erosion and redefinition. These technical definitions are
generally negative; that is, they tell us more about what the Trinity isn't
than what it is. This shouldn't be surprising, however. We must always
remember that we are trying to define and describe something that is
absolutely, universally unique. It is far easier to say, "I don't mean this,"
than it is to say, "Well, it's like this," since there is nothing in the created universe that really, fully is like an absolutely unique thing. That's
what makes it unique in the first place! Consequently, theologians have
had much more success at saying, "The Trinity is not this," than positively saying, "The Trinity is this."

WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING-

The errors that result from denying, or misunderstanding, any
one of the foundational truths presented above can be graphically illustrated through the use of the following triangle diagram:

Each of the three sides represents a foundational truth. When any
one of these truths is denied, the other two sides form an arrow that
point to the resultant error. For example, if one denies monotheism,
the other two sides of the triangle point to "polytheism." If one denies
the equality of the persons, the result is "subordination ism." And if
one denies the existence of three persons, the result is "modalism." This
diagram also points out how balanced we must be in our study of this
important subject. Failing to believe one fundamental element of
God's revelation will lead us into grave danger and error.