Why Do We Believe in the Trinity?

Catholic Exchange ^ | June 14, 2006 | Fr. Roger Landry

[NYer]

We believe in the Blessed Trinity because we believe in Jesus, Who revealed the Trinity. God had prepared the Jews not only to welcome the Messiah, but to recognize through revelation what philosophers like Aristotle achieved through reason: that there is a God and there can only be one God.

Moses said to the Jews, “Acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other but to believe in God Who is the only God.” When the Messiah finally came, He revealed a huge mystery that went far beyond what the Jews were expecting: that the one God in Whom they believe is not solitary, but a unity, a communion of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Messiah is the Son.

He told them explicitly that the Father and He are one (Jn 10:30). He told them that He and the Father would send the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26, Jn 15:26). And when He sent them out to baptize in the name of God, He didn’t give them instructions to baptize in the “names” of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — as if they were three different gods — but in the “name,” for they are fundamentally a union of three persons. This is what the term Trinity means. It was devised by the early Church apologist Tertullian around the year 200 from the Latin words “unitas” and “trinus,” literally “unity” and “three.” It signifies that there is a unity of three persons in one God.

Since the beginning of the Church, theologians have spent their lives trying to penetrate this mystery and explain it to others. St. Patrick used the image of a three-leaf clover. St. Augustine used the image of the mind, with memory, reason and will. More recent minds have used the image of H20, which can exist as ice, water, or steam. But none of these analogies — though interesting and somewhat helpful — do justice to the reality of the mystery of how three persons can exist in the one God.

When St. Augustine was in the middle of his voluminous and classic study of the Blessed Trinity, he took a walk along the beach in northern Africa to try to clear his head and pray. He saw a young girl repeatedly filling a scallop shell with sea water and emptying it into a hole she had dug in the sand. “What are you doing?” Augustine tenderly asked. “I'm trying to empty the sea into this hole,” the child replied. “How do you think that with a little shell,” Augustine retorted, “you can possibly empty this immense ocean into a tiny hole?” The little girl countered, “And how do you, with your small head, think you can comprehend the immensity of God?” As soon as the girl said this, she disappeared, convincing Augustine that she had been an angel sent to teach him an important lesson: No matter how gifted God had made him, he would never be able to comprehend fully the mystery of the Trinity.

This, of course, does not mean we cannot understand anything. If we want to get to the heart of the mystery of the Trinity, we can turn to the most theological of the Apostles, who meditated deeply on all that Jesus had revealed and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said simply and synthetically, “God is love” (1 Jn 4:16). For God to be love, He has to love someone. None of us can love in a vacuum; there must always be an object of our love. Who is the object of God’s love? It cannot be man, or the created world, or the universe, because all of these existed in time and God is eternal and therefore existed before time.

It’s also impossible to say that God merely loved Himself in a solitary way, because this would not really be love but a form of egotism and narcissism. For God to be love, there needed to be an eternal relationship of love, with one who loves, one who is loved, and the love that unites them. This is what exists in the Blessed Trinity: The Father loved His image, the Son, so much that their mutual and eternal love “spirated” or “generated” the Holy Spirit. They exist in a communion of love. The three persons of the Blessed Trinity are united in absolutely everything except, as the early Church councils said, their “relations of origin,” what it means to be Father, what it means to be Son of the Father, and what it means to proceed from the Father and the Son.

These theological insights about the blessed Trinity may seem theoretical, but they become highly practical when we reflect on the fact that we have been made in the image and likeness of God and called to communion with God. To be in the image and likeness of God means to be created in the image and likeness of a communion of persons in love. Our belief in the Trinity — the central teaching of the Catholic faith — has given the Church the deepest understanding available to human beings of the nature of man, the meaning of human life, and what it means to love.

[FJ290]

See post #458 and #460.

[Buggman]

What has that to do with my question: What was the oath in the Torah that involved shaving the head, and what expenses were incurred as part of the process?

[Binghamton_native]

Now where there is a remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin. Hebrews 10:18
"For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins. Hebrews 10:26
"Behold, the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world." St. John 1:29

As believers, we certainly do hold to the truths you have pointed out in the above verses. However, what many of us are trying to point out is that in the 1st century Church the Apostles had not commanded the Jewish believers that they could not keep the law as we see in the Acts 21 passage. I don't think that any of us are trying to say that this has anything to do with salvation. Note that in I Corinthians 9:19-23 we have the following:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

[Binghamton_native]

I think this message by John Piper is helpful to the subject we are discussing:

http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper96/02-18-96.htm

[HarleyD]

First off, you're being waaay too serious in the face of a flippant answer.

People always take me as a crabby poster. It's the way I type. Maybe I was always a Puritan at heart. I should buy a black computer with a black keyboard with a black monitor...

Secondly, do you only obey God if there's something in it for you?

Are you implying there is something in it for God in following the laws? Is someone being disobedient if they fail to follow the dietary laws? Who exactly is benefiting?

This isn't about fasting which one should do in secret. This is about following the dietary laws set forth in the Old Testament. They were given to the Jews for a specific reason along with a lot of other things-which, I might add, they found they couldn't keep. How do you explain the value in following these laws now? What purpose do they serve?

[Diego1618]

Do you happen to recall which is the verse attributed to the people of Jesus' home town,

Sorry, I have been away much of the day. I see the good doctor has answered your question. Thank you Dr.Eckleburg.

[DouglasKC]

They were given to the Jews for a specific reason along with a lot of other things-which, I might add, they found they couldn't keep. How do you explain the value in following these laws now? What purpose do they serve?

Excuse me for jumping in here, but I would like to give a response:

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

For instruction in righteousness:

Lev 11:45 'For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.'"
Lev 11:46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth,
Lev 11:47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.

First of all, God says that certain creatures were created to be eaten by man, edible. Others were not created to be eaten by man. They serve other purposes. God knows best on this subject.

Second of all, the bible makes a distinction between "unclean and clean" and "edibles creatures". In other words, the food laws are there for two purposes.

The first is health. God didn't create certain animals to be used as food for human beings, his children. The second purpose of the food laws is to exercise spiritual discernment. By properly discerning what God has declared to be "clean and unclean", we exercise spiritual discernment, which helps us to recognize in all matters what is of God and what is not:

Lev 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean

Speaking of rebellious Israel, God says:

Eze 22:26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

[FJ290]

What has that to do with my question: What was the oath in the Torah that involved shaving the head, and what expenses were incurred as part of the process?

I'll tell you what it has to do with your question. There is no longer any sacrifice required to be placed at the altar because Jesus is the sacrifice which atones for sin. Even St. Paul, whom some here claim went to offer a sacrifice at the temple said so in the passages that I listed from Hebrews.

[1000 silverlings]

I should buy a black computer with a black keyboard with a black monitor...

I have a black computer, black keyboard, laptop, so I guess no monitor exactly, lol.

[xzins]

blockquote>

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
• 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
• 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
• 26 Then Paul took the men, and the
  • next day purifying himself with them
  • entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until
  • that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

FJ, I am simply quoting the bible.

I, too, was surprised the day I realized that the bible does not teach that the Jewish Christians were required to give up Jewish worship styles.

I'm sure the teaching is that the OT folks were looking at forward to Christ's sacrifice. Those old sacrifices NEVER could remit sin, as if the blood of bulls and goats could have any effect. They were always symbolic of the sacrifice of our Lord.

Likewise, for Christian Jews those sacrifices looked BACKWARD to the Sacrifice, and they were a reminder of the true sacrifice.

Paul provided an offering in the Temple for men he was with as part of a purification rite. That's the reading of scripture. That's where I stand.

[Diego1618]

Regarding the poster's peripheral reference to Plato, your comment is remarkably strange and misplaced

I apologize to you if you were offended by my "Plato" comment. I also apologize to Victoria.

[FJ290]

Likewise, for Christian Jews those sacrifices looked BACKWARD to the Sacrifice, and they were a reminder of the true sacrifice.

Paul provided an offering in the Temple for men he was with as part of a purification rite. That's the reading of scripture. That's where I stand.

Why is there any need to look backward?

Ok, you've taken one passage out of Scripture to try and prove your point. Please explain to me why St. Paul says that there is NO MORE OBLATION for sin.

There's important verses from Hebrews 10 that I left out earlier today as I was being rushed by my wife to get to the garden store, LOL! Hebrews 10:10-12

"In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.

And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God."

See? Those sacrifices can never take away sins. They are useless.

"For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away. Hebrews 10:4

[FJ290]

First of all, God says that certain creatures were created to be eaten by man, edible. Others were not created to be eaten by man. They serve other purposes. God knows best on this subject.

Hmm.. these passages from St. Mark seem to indicate to me that it really doesn't matter anymore to God what you eat or vain ritual washings: St. Mark 7:8-9 and St. Mark 7:14-20

"For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.

And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.

And calling again the multitude unto him, he said to them: Hear ye me all, and understand.

There is nothing from without a man that entering into him, can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man.

If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable.

And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him:

Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?

But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.

[xzins]

We are agreeing, brother. The blood of those animals NEVER could take away sin. Not BEFORE Christ and not AFTER Christ. NEVER!

Only the one perfect sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God was sufficient to take away the sin of the world. It is only through the sacrifice of Jesus that atonement ever was made.

But, the way I see it that ritual was given to Israel by God, and it is especially theirs.

In Romans 9, Paul says:

3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel.
• Theirs is the adoption as sons;
• theirs the divine glory,
• the covenants,
• the receiving of the law,
• the temple worship and
• the promises.
• 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and
• from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

[DouglasKC]

"For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.
And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.

The concept of clean and unclean meats is NOT a tradition of man, but is a commandment of God. The only scripture they had at the time of Christ was the books of the "old" testament that unmistakeably showed them this in Leviticus chapter 11. The Jewish religion HAD developed numerious traditions of men, one of which was ritualistic washings.

Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats

"Draught" is a toilet, a privy. In Mark 7, Jesus is answering the Jews who are criticizing them for not following the manmade, religious tradition of washing up to your elbows before eating. Jesus is saying that any dirt on his hands is incidental because it's going to go through our digestive systems and end up in the toilet. However, he is NOT saying that there is no difference between clean and unclean meats. If he were, the Pharisee's would be quick to point out that he was clearly and absolutely violating the only scripture they had and was thus not the messiah.

[FJ290]

If he were, the Pharisee's would be quick to point out that he was clearly and absolutely violating the only scripture they had and was thus not the messiah.

Please show me where he made a distinction in that passage I gave. He said ALL meats.

[DouglasKC]

If he were, the Pharisee's would be quick to point out that he was clearly and absolutely violating the only scripture they had and was thus not the messiah.
Please show me where he made a distinction in that passage I gave. He said ALL meats.

I would ask that you read the verse in context of the whole chapter. The controversy doesn't have anything to do with clean or unclean meats, but with ritualistic hand washing:

Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

Tradition. Jesus was addressing this issue and no other.

That being said, the word translated "meat" in the King James version didn't always mean "meat". Meat could mean any kind of food.

The actual greek word is "broma":

brōma
Thayer Definition:
1) that which is eaten, food

Many other translations render it as "food".

The Pharisee's were concerned that a tiny particle of something dirty might be on their hands. They invented a tradition of ritualistically scrubbing their hands to prevent this then elevated the tradition to the same place as scripture.

If the Pharisee's had thought that he meant that they could eat pork and other foods that God said weren't edible, they would have jumped all over him, and showed him the scripture from writings where he was wrong. They didn't.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Also, I'm not Jewish, so I have no real reason to engage in Temple practice.

You wouldn't be able to even if you were, there's no temple. Last time I looked.

[xzins]

:>)

Leave it to II to point that out.

I was just thinking, who were you when we put the RF together?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I was just thinking, who were you when we put the RF together?

I feel stupid now. What's the RF? :-)