Why Do We Believe in the Trinity?

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.

*chuckle* Yes, you are dead to the law. Having died with the Messiah, you are as a man already executed--the law can pass no further condemnation on you. But having died with the Messiah, we must now live in Him. And He keeps the Torah.

I suspect, xzins, that being a mature believer, you're already keeping the vast majority of the Torah: Do you murder? Steal? Commit adultery? Charge usury when loaning to a poor brother? Take things people need to live or work to guaruntee a loan? Worship idols? Practice occultism?

On the positive side: Do you put up railings around high platforms where people walk, like a porch or deck? Do you loan to brethren in need when you can do so? Do you "sacrifice" time and resources to your congregation? Do you raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord? Do you honor your parents and other authorities? Do you strive to make sure that you're not taking the name Christian in vain--that is, for nothing?

There are also many commands that you probably keep in spirit, if not technically correctly: Do you observe Sunday as if it were the Sabbath? Do you observe "appointed times" to thank the Lord for His provision, like Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving (the latter of which, btw, was my Pilgrim ancestors' "Feast of Tabernacles")? Do you have reminders of God's Word up around your house, like paintings and needlework with Bible verses worked in? Do you wear anything as a reminder to walk with God, like a cross necklace or a WWJD bracelet?

We could dicker around on those "technically incorrect" points, but I'm frankly not worried about it. Who am I to judge another man's bondservant? He knows your heart, and He's already paid for every sin. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8:1)

I challenge the GRPL and hit them hard on the issue because they actively discourage keeping the Torah, which to my mind puts them under Mat. 5:19, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." You never have. You have not come to the point of keeping the "Jewish law," and the Spirit may never bring you to that point, but you've also never been anything but a supportive brother in the Lord to me. And I thank you for that.

You keep doing what you're doing and keep obeying what the Spirit shows you in the Word, and may the Lord YHVH bless your walk on the narrow path.

There is absolutely zero disagreement between the Gospel and the Torah. To say that there is is to commit a form of practical Marconianism: It pits Yeshua, the Living Word of God, against the Torah, the Written Word of God.

What do you do with this verse from Scripture?

"For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." St. John 1:17

According to Scripture, his followers didn't know the law.

"The Pharisees therefore answered them: Are you also seduced?

Hath any one of the rulers believed in him, or of the Pharisees?

But this multitude, that knoweth not the law, are accursed." St. John 7:47-49

What do you do with sections of the law that Jesus obviously abolished, such as divorce, that were granted under Mosaic law?

St. Paul said, "Be it known therefore to you, men, brethren, that through him forgiveness of sins is preached to you: and from all the things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses."

If the law of Moses does nothing for justification, why practice it?

Please don't misunderstand me, I believe the OT isn't to be abolished or disregarded because in it is the story of Creation, Original Sin, the prophets, the Ten Commandments and the foretelling of our Lord Jesus Christ. I just think that it's obvious that we are no longer under Mosaic law.

That said, I have problems with some Protestants that I have spoken to that seem to think we aren't required to keep the Ten Commandments anymore. I personally don't know how they can justify that when Jesus repeated them to the rich young man to follow.

Your argument by outrage is wearing just a bit thin, and your accusations of attitude are mere projection.

I've said no such thing--I've said that there was a reason why the Apostles didn't demand that new proselytes walk perfectly in the Torah as a prerequsite to inclusion in the community.

Imagine if a Wiccan became a Christian in your congregation. The first and prerequisite condition would naturally be that she put away all of her paganism and occultic practices. Would you also require that she memorize and be able to perfectly spout Calvinist theology before you let her in to teach her? I doubt it.

Likewise it is not my place to set any "bars". It is God's responsibility to guide and direct each of us. Each Christian has a purpose that God brings about in each of us.

Funny, Sha'ul didn't seem to think so, at least not in the sense that we are using the term in this discussion (Phil. 4:18). Who are you to contradict him again?

You're failing on a very simple point: I've shown that the Scriptures themselves establish different standards for different people under different circumstances.

So I suppose God gave the nine commandments to some and eleven commandments to others??? Sorry, I don't buy your argument nor do I see this in the scriptures; although some apparently do. The only thing the law does is shows us when we fall short.

Victoria Delsoul's understanding is confusing the issue. She/He argues...

You might be confused about my post, but there's no confusion about me - I'm a she.

She/He argues the use of "brother of" to support her side of the debate that says it's use was significant in calling all converts "brother and sisters," even with the distinction in Galation's 1:19 which says, "...the Lord's brother."

However, there is no other distinction in scripture where someone is called the "Lord's brother."

OK, let's make it simple... Let's just look at Acts 1:14 and 1:15, which I posted earlier.

Act 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. link

Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) link

Answer this, do you honestly believe that Mary had 120 children at the time?

I already posted that James, Joseph, Jude,and Simon, were the sons of Mary the Clopas – sister of Virgin Mary – whose husband was Clopas (Alphaeus.) Read Mark 15:40 and Mark 3:18, which I also posted.

Let's look at Act 1:13

Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James.

James, the son of Alphaeus (Clopas) whose wife is Mary of Clopas sister of Virgin Mary... and as you can see, their brothers are Judas and Simon who are also the sons of Clopas.

Let's look at this one:

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. link

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary? THE SON of Mary... it doesn't say whether He is the oldest or the youngest son... just the SON of Mary... ONE SON, so there's no question Jesus is the Son of Mary. So, why then, doesn't the NT say something like... Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and Mary's other sons James, Joses, Juda, and Simon?

Nope, it says... the Son of Mary the brother of James and Joses and Juda and Simon the Zealot (which you already know are the children of Clopas and Mary's sister. Making James, Joseph, Juda, and Simon, cousins.

So again:

Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James.

I'm going to repeat this again. The Bible NEVER mentions that Mary had other sons or daughters, and never once says, “Mary's other children” or “Mary's other sons and daughters.” What you see is, Jesus brother/s - and I already explain the meaning of the word brother in my earlier post.

What do you do with this verse from Scripture?

"For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." St. John 1:17

I'm not seeing a contradiction. As Sha'ul points out, the Torah, or Law, is spiritual and defines what sin is, but because we ourselves are carnal, it puts us under condemnation. Therefore, grace--God's unmerited favor--and truth--not limited to but including right interpretation of the Torah--came through Yeshua the Messiah, so that we are no longer under the condemnation of the Torah, but under His grace.

Nevertheless, the Torah still defines what is sin and what is good, and Sha'ul rightly says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! . . . What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!" (Rom. 6:1-2, 15). Therefore, while we are no longer "under the Law," we should still keep the Torah and not sin.

The difference is between a man keeping his Lord's commands because he is afraid of punishment and a man keeping his Lord's commands because he loves his Lord.

According to Scripture, his followers didn't know the law.

You're giving credence to the accusations of Yeshua's adversaries? Do you also accuse Him of blasphemy, or of being the agent of Beelzebub, as they did?

What do you do with sections of the law that Jesus obviously abolished, such as divorce, that were granted under Mosaic law?

Yeshua never abolished any of the Torah: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Torah, till all be fulfilled." (Mat. 5:17-18) What He did was call us to an even higher standard of keeping it.

Thus, where the Torah calls on one to not commit adultery, Yeshua tells us not to lust. Where the Torah commands us not to murder, Yeshua tells us to not harbour anger in our hearts. Thus He "fulfilled" the Torah--a rabbinical term which means to "interpret properly"; that is, one "makes the Torah full" by filling it with its proper meaning.

In the case of divorce, He was actually answering a long-standing debate between the rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shimmei: Whether one could divorce one's wife for any reason, or only for adultery, based on Deu. 24:1:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

The key debate was over whether a man could divorce his wife simply for losing favor in his eyes (". . . even if she burns his dinner") as the school of Hillel claimed, or whether it had to be for sexual misconduct, as the school of Shimmei claimed the term "uncleaness" meant. Yeshua came down decisecivly on Shimmei's side (the only time He disagreed with Hillel, to the best of my knowledge).

The disciples wondered why Moshe allowed divorce at all, then. While not as common in their day as our own, divorce was hardly unknown. One could see an American audience wondering the same thing. Yeshua's answer does not override the Torah, but brings out its fullest meaning:

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Mat. 19:8-9)

"Suffered you" is the key phrase. There are many instances in the Torah (and in the NT, for that matter) in which God permits a thing, but shows why it's a bad idea. God permits polygamy for the sake of protecting women and children, but one just has to read about Jacob and his wives to see why it'd be stupid to have more than one. There are any number of occassions in which the Bible presents a "second best" instruction: "Don't do X, but if you do do X, then you must do Y." The entire institution of repentence and sacrifice is a prime example: Don't sin, but if you do sin, repent and be atoned for by the blood of the sacrifice.

Ditto divorce: Why did God permit it? Strangely enough to protect the woman. A man wasn't simply allowed to cast aside a wife (as in other ancient near-east cultures of the time), but had to go through a legal proceding in which the wife obtained a bill of divorce. This provided protection to the woman: The man couldn't accuse her of adultery later when she remarried.

Yeshua's answer, then, comes to this: Divorce is wrong. A husband and wife become one flesh and one person in the institution of marriage, and if a man divorces his wife--unless she breaks the marriage first via fornication--he both sins against and dishonors her. However, the Torah given by Moses permitted divorce because God knew that the hardness of your hearts would cause you to do it anyway, so He provided a 'second best' answer that provided for the protection of the wife of an abusive husband (as one who would cast out his wife to marry another is clearly abusive).

That is correct. The Torah does not justify a man, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Therefore, God sent a perfect Sacrifice to give us His grace. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't still strive to obey God: Just because you sometimes slip and sin by looking at a woman lustfully, does that mean that you should run around stealing, murdering, and blaspheming God just because you are under grace? "God forbid!"

You should practice the Torah to the best of your ability only because you love the God who bought you. If you're practicing any aspect of it--even not commiting adultery--out of fear of punishment or to garner favor, then you are putting yourself "under the law."

I'll say it again: I do not seek to keep the Torah in order to be saved, but because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way.

That said, I have problems with some Protestants that I have spoken to that seem to think we aren't required to keep the Ten Commandments anymore.

Why? That's the logical conclusion of saying that because we are no longer under the law, we shouldn't keep it.

I personally don't know how they can justify that when Jesus repeated them to the rich young man to follow.

Yeshua was giving a summary, not "cutting back" the Torah to just Ten Commandments. In fact, pretty much every command in the Torah can be derived from one or more of the Ten.

Besides, if you're going to say that, which day then do you keep the Sabbath on?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning anyone here on the basis of Torah. I who believe we should keep it still stumble all over the place, and I agree with you 100% that we are saved by grace, not by works.

What I'm trying to show you and others here is why I think the Torah is still valid under the New Covenant. I've written a longer piece on my blog that you may be interested in, called Why the New Covenant Doesn't Do Away with the Torah.

The cardinal error of so many Torah-observers is that they make it a matter of salvation: "Well, if you don't keep the Torah/keep the right sabbath/avoid pork/whatever, then you're not really saved." Wrong, wrong, wrong. Did YHVH save Israel from Egypt because they were following the Torah? No, He saved them by the blood of the Passover Lamb first, then gave them the Torah for their instruction on Mt. Sinai. Likewise, we are saved by God's grace, and then He teaches us how to walk with Him.

I'm no different from most conservative Christians in this regard. I just think that there are a few teachings that we've not been following for the last 2000 years that we should have been, that's all.

I suppose that means we actively advocate breaking the 10 commandments.

As I recall, you and I had a series of debates not so long ago in which you not only said that the fourth commandment was no longer valid, but also claimed that Yeshua Himself had violated it. And in post #444 on this thread, you say:

Let's suppose there was an 11th commandment against fish. Then, guess what would happen. More than likely, sometime during my life as hard as I would try, I would eat fish on Friday. I would have transgressed the law. And the wages for my sin is death. The commandment isn't void-fish on Friday is a bad thing according to the 11th commandment. But Christ has freed me that if, on the most like possibility that I stumble and eat fish, He has taken away my sin. It doesn't excuse my actions. It only corrects my behavior before God. The trouble is, there is no 11th commandment about fish on Friday just as there are no commandments against dietary laws-unless you're willing to say everyone here is transgressing the law of God.
Let's suppose there is another reason for me giving up fish. If I give up fish on Friday to the Lord, what does that buy me? Do you think God would be extra pleased with my "sacrifice"? Do you think that I will "feel" a greater sense of spirituality by my sacrifice or an extra "closeness" to God than someone who doesn't give up fish? If I go to McDonald's with a group of my friends and they order a fish fillet and I order a hamburger because it's Friday, do you think this is a great testimony?
It buys you absolutely nothing and one has to wonder what precisely is the point?

You have therefore put yourself in the position of teaching men not to follow commandments unless they can see a clear benefit to themselves or to God. So, yes, I'm accusing you of attempting to discourage people from obeying the whole Torah, since you have made pragmatism, not God's Word, the basis of your walk with God.

Our reward for our efforts, unlike xzins, will be that we shall be "called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

I quoted Yeshua. If you have a problem with His sovereign right to determine position in the Kingdom of Heaven based on what a man practices and teaches (and I do believe that it is teaching men not to obey God's commands which is at issue here, cf. Jas. 3:1) on earth, take it up with Him.

Never mind that God has written His laws upon our hearts to walk in His statues and obey His ordinances.

Then go do so. But don't try to teach that I shouldn't follow a command that is plainly written in God's Word, or that obedience to the Scriptures--which have the Torah as their firstfruits--is pointless.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.