For those wondering if the doctrine of Trinity (at its most common understanding – a three-in-one God, made up of Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit), here is a clip from Rob Bell’s ‘Everything is Spiritual’ tour last year, where he opens with a direct definition of the Trinity from Genesis 1:3 (where God is identified as plural – Elohim):
In John 1, the Apostle John specifically refers back to the Word in the beginning (Genesis 1:3) and makes it known who the word is.
Until we start adding man-made rules and ideas to this, it is not a “system”… it is just plain old theology…
[UPDATE]
FYI, here is a clip from the end of this presentation:
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pm and is filed under Linked Articles, Theology.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
42 Comments(+Add)
Was God always three distinct persons or did He purposely morph before creation knowing His plan included the Incarnation, the inhabitation of believers, the Son praying to the Father, and other things that would require Him to minister in more than one person?
Most non-trinitarians remove the divinity from Christ while the oneness people teach salvation through works. The understanding of the Trinity is not necessary for salvation.
This is not to suggest otherwise, but just to differentiate the Trinity (as being existant) from a systematic theology built around it…
I am not sure I understand you, Chris. What theology is built around the Trinity as such?
That’s a very weird view Rick. I think you’re asking questions from a matter that is entirely silent in the Bible (God morphing in to 3 persons before the Creation…). Besides, I think that contradicts the immutable nature of God. He’s always been what He always is. He IS.
I agree, understanding the Trinity will not save a person. Jesus will. You never see the Trinity preached when the Gospel is preached anywhere in Scripture, that’s because it’s not part of the Gospel. Understanding God’s deeper nature comes later in Christian life.
I wrote about this on my blog, you can check it out if you want (I’m not the best writer though, be warned). Here
Love,
Joe
I read your post, very good. My question about the morphing has no answer, I know. I ask that in order to press into our finite minds the vast and deep subject of the essence of God Himself. There is an incredible mystery about God and when some people seem to imply that they have it all figured out they only exhibit their ignorance of the subject.
Yeah, I see what you’re saying now Rick. We can’t say we have “God completely figured out”, but we can say we know for sure the things about God He has chosen to reveal to us. And that whatever else there is to know about God (The 99.99999999% x infinity we don’t know), cannot contradict what we already know about God.
Thanks for the peer review by the way lol. Good to know I’m not insane.
Joe
i dunno…
the implicit claim of the Nicene Creed and the explicit claim of the Athanasian Creed is the necessity of the Trinity for real Christian identity.
That witness of the early church is pretty weighty to me, just my VHO…
love to all.
The creeds of men mean nothing to me. They are without Scriptural exegesis and quite nebulous. If the church hasn’t progressed in revelation and interpretation of God’s Word by now then we are regressing. Creeds contradict each other and they are not Scripture. If all those creeds are important than why don’t we just memorize them as inspired interpretations?
And while I’m at it the early fathers have taken an idolic status in some circles. The Roman Church quotes the early church fathers as having inspired insight into the Scriptures, the same with Luther. I believe the opposite, I believe that those men still clung to traditions and superstitions and even Peter, the preacher at Pentecost, didn’t believe Gentiles could be saved until later.
Creeds are not the Dead Sea scrolls.
Right, but I’m saying…where was the Trinity preached in evangelistic situations in the New Testament?
“Repent and believe!! Oh and, let me tell you about the Triune nature of God!!”
Not really. lol.
Trinity comes later, and Christians will accept this, I believe.
Joe
Rick,
There are some who try to specify ecactly how the Trinity acts (or does not act), and the exact nature between the three, how they interact, or things based on tradition, not scripture…
Often, when people say “if you don’t believe in systematic theologies, do you believe in the Trinity”, I answer “give me your defintion of “Trinity”, and I’ll tell you if I believe it (because I don’t necessarily believe the modal/methodical stuff that gets attached)…
Did anyone understand what Ken’s post had to do with this video? Is he questioning Rob’s Hebrew? ????
There are only two legitimate views. One says there is one God who exists in three persons. The other says there is only one God who reveals Himself in three ways but He is only one person (usually Jesus). It is impossible to fully comprehend much less explain those realities.
I mean what is a divine person? It is the mystery of all mysteries and to act as if we have captured it in a systematic theology is absurd. One must believe that Jesus was God in the flesh and then believe the gospel.
The Trinity – Let’s see, we cannot explain it but you must believe it. Where in Scripture does it say you must believe the three persons view of the Trinity or else you are not a Christian?
I know. How in anyway is what Bell said about the Trinity, and the Hebrew of Gen 1, incorrect or unorthodox? Is Ken Silva that…well…blind? Come on Ken, you know that clip is Legit. That post is depressing.
Joe
This was in no way a response to Ken. Where it came from was the discussion about Nathan White at Strange Baptist Fire and belief in the “system” of the Trinity…
“Repent and believe, for the Trinity needs to be understood and believed before you can be saved!! Oh yeah, and the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand too…”
Mark 1:15 New Systematic Theology Version (NSTV)
LOL
Joe
Matthew 3:
16And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Matthew 28:
18And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
The Bible manifests the trinity, visually, audibly, and in spirit and truth. The triune God saves men.
Yup, God [who is a Trinity] saves men. Agreed.
So now Chris P agrees with Rob Bell! LOL!
iggy
Hey…by the normal logical fallacies employed by the ODMs, Chris P is a heretic!!
Chris P., you are absolutely correct. However many sinners who get saved, especially backward tribes with no Bible as yet, find it difficult to gracp the concept. It will always be a mystery but the key element is the divinity of Christ, that He was the Creator and very God.
That is why the problem with T. D. Jakes is not so much his oneness that believes Jesus was God, but his health and wealth gospel and his doctrine that in order to be saved you must be baptized in Jesus’ name. That is not the gospel.
Leaving the last topic…with ‘redefining doctrines’ fresh on my mind, who would believe but coming up to this next post and find the very thing. Here this guy is redefining what everbody else here is calling the trinity…..but he calls it
“some sort of creator, some sort of spirit, some sort of word,
…….some sort of multiple person, some sort of community of creativity”
and then adds “what a strange way to begin a very long book”
what?
Serious question: Do you guys really listen to him?
tom m said:
Yes, a lot of us do. Also, the 10,000+ people at his church seem to, as well (not that really proves anything).
So what is your problem with Bell’s description of the Trinity? I mean it’s a concept that’s in the Bible, but the actual workings of it are mysterious.
And indeed it is. I’ve often wondered what someone would think reading Genesis for the first time having not heard of the concept of the Trinity and coming across the “let us”. It would indeed seem odd.
I guess I don’t see what you’re getting at.
I have absolutely no problem with how Bell approaches the concept of the Trinity as it is shrouded in the first several verses in Genesis. I have never heard anyone adequately explain the Trinity and the best they have is the egg thing. And then some take that and demand not only adherance to that doctrine, they demand the exact same verbiage.
God is a mystery. God in three persons is a mystery. God in three persons but the same God is a mystery. So how do you demand specific and non-negotiable facts about a mystery?
You do it because of fear and control. And when you refuse to pick your fights carefully, you lose credibility on many fronts.
Tom M,
I sure do. I go to the church. I’ve got hours and hours and hours of his sermons on MP3.
Tom M,
You must realize that Bell is mostly speaking to people who have not heard the bibles story before… or have but are still a bit sceptical.
He is acknowledging that the idea of a plurality being one… or a singular being a plurality is an odd way to begin a book… and i would agree.
Often many of us take things like “Trinity” for granted or do not even try to speak of it as it is a concept few can even begin to grasp.
I do not see why one need to criticise Bell for trying to explain it and acknowledging that some things in our faith are hard to grasp… for even the philosophers wanted to hear the story of Jesus again after Paul stated he rose from the grave… they got the story of the prophet who lived and was killed, but wanted to hear it again as to what Paul meant about Jesus raising from the dead… it was confusing to them.
So, really is this a place of critique?
iggy
in reply:
“some sort” is irreverent…..”community of creativity” sounds like some new age gaia-speak (is how i’d describe it)….but not really expecting to convince anybody.
On another subject, and at the risk of being thought of as casting aspersions….but to my mind it is a fair question because i’m serious…is this guy heterosexual?
I’m wondering….
Tom, are you serious? WOW. I’m curious why do you ask?
basically mannerisims and speech….it’s my perception….wrong?
sorry, meant to write ‘mannerisms’ (sp)
Tom,
I shouldn’t take your question seriously, but Bell’s not gay. He’s married with two children.
He’s never struck me as being gay or even effeminate. Of course I spend a lot of time with artist types, so what do I know.
Tom,
Bell’s method of communication is much more narrative than didactic, which is not valuing or devaluing either style. (In fact, much of the Bible is written in narrative form, rather than didactic form).
In using this form, he is better able to connect with modern unchurched audiences through narrative which expresses truth, rather than by diadacticism which defines truth.
An, FYI, he’s married with two kids, living in Grand Rapids, MI
Okay, last comment, but you guys are pretty good at letting people say what they think so here goes…..and this is serious also, not just a taking a free shot.
It’s good that you posted the beginning and the end of the presentation…cause i’m glad that i didn’t have to sit through the middle of it.
one man’s opinion….
Tom,
FWIW, my 14-year-old son with ADHD stood (standing room only) through the entire 105 minutes of it, listening intently – and he still remembers most of what was presented 17 months later…
Hi again all! It’s been a while – have had heaps on
Elohim is a plural, but it is a plural of importance, not numeracy.
Phil Miller:
From what I’ve read on the matter, *pretty much every Hebrew scholar seems to think that God refering to “us” is Him speaking to the heavenly hosts.
*That I have read
Dave,
There are a number of pre-Christian Jewish writings which identify the “trinity” (God as Creator, God as Word, God as Spirit), including the ancient sections of Genesis Rabbah, which would have been in the oral traditions Jesus was familiar with.
There are a number of times that the Ruach Ha Kodesh – the Holy Wind or Holy Spirit – is mentioned in the Old Testament, and it has always been seen as separate from God but yet still a part of God from the beginning.
Additionally, there was – and for Jews who do not believe in Jesus, there still is – on exactly what God the Word (Genesis 1:3) is, though traditionally it was seen as the Hebrew Scriptures (which we call the Old Testament), which had orally passed down over centuries of time. This is why John opens his gospel the way he does:
John is acknowledging what most observant Jews believed at this point. The Word = God (Elohim)
Later, though, he identifies that Word
It is here that John is explicitly stating that Jesus = Word, leaving it for the reader to understand that if Jesus = Word and Word = God, that Jesus = God.
I once had a Jewish friend who thought it was funny that Christians argued over the triune nature of God, specifically because the first three verses of scripture spelled this out.
Now – where I HAVE heard that God (plural) meant God + the heavenly hosts, is from some Christian scholars who understand the Hebrew language, but don’t understand the Hebrew context of scripture… that does not surprise me. In modern parlance, we call that “book-smart and street-stupid”…
Right, that makes no sense though, and also, remember they’re assuming the Trinity doesn’t exist, because they refuse to believe. I wouldn’t trust Jewish Scholars to interpret the Bible anymore than I would trust Muslims. Or an Atheist.
Besides, it can’t be the heavenly hosts that makes the ‘our’ statement with God. Angels are not made in God’s image, man is. Man is the only creation in God’s image. It just doesn’t make plain sense for God to join with creatures He just made like…a second ago… and say “Hey, let’s make man in OUR image.” Angels aren’t anything like God or man, they’re ministering spirits like Hebrews says.
It’s not like the angels (part of this creation, the only creation) existed before God started making things either, because nothing existed except God, so they’ve only been around as long as humans have. Angels were made to minister for God and Man. It just seems like a huge exegetical stretch to say the “us” from Genesis is angels. That would imply the angels were in God’s image, and that destroys a lot of Biblical doctrine. What about the tower of Babel where God says “us” again?.
But then again, Rob Bell would just say that these doctrines are just more ’springs on the trampoline of faith’, whatever that junk means lol. I usually deal in brick walls. (Read Velvet Elvis if you have no idea what I mean by this lol)
V/R
Joe
Yeah Chris, I’ve heard that too about Scholars thinking the heavenly host were somehow ‘making’ Man with God. I don’t find that a workable position when considering the rest of the Bible, specifically the things you spoke about.
I still don’t trust “bible scholars” who don’t have the Holy Spirit. Then again, I don’t trust a lot of scholars who DO. LOL. Not that I won’t listen and consider.
Joe
I have no probems with that, what I have problems with however is three persons. Again, the word Elohim also refers to kings, rulers and false gods all of which are very clearly singular and the word in that context means plural (in numeracy)! Surely if God was three persons (not denying a triune nature however) He would have revealed that in His name, YHWH, which is very singular.
I suppose it’s a matter of opinion then, as it makes sense to me
With the usage of Elohim it just doesn’t fit to me God speaking to Himself and using “us” when the word means singular in that context. Straight from Brown-Driver-Briggs’ dictionary:
If He is three Persons, which one spoke? Which was in charge to order them? If it was the Godhead that spoke to all of them, was it all of them and none at the same time? God often gets his angels to do his work, so it doesn’t seem silly to me. If I’m in the shed working on my car with a mate who doesn’t know much about them, I still use “we” type words to describe what’s happening.
The exact opposite can be said that Christians believe in a Trinity of Persons that doesn’t exist and refuse to believe so. I feel there’s also a great danger in refusing truth from Jews just because they don’t have the Holy Spirit. It’s their native language and they understand it well. We can end up in all sorts of strange beliefs that aren’t grounded in the Old Testament.
Dave – I believe that the Trinity is something that should never divide believers and it is dealt with very lightly in Scripture. The divinity of Christ is the issue, the plurality of Persons while remaining One is beyond our comprehension even if we say we believe it.
What is a Person? What is the difference between the Father’s Person and the Spirit’s Person? And if these Persons are One in substance how can they be different? It took the church quite a while before they espoused the doctrine but instead of being non-dogmatic some said you were bot a Christian if you did not believe in the Trinity.
Never mind that the Word says nothing of the sort, these are the doctrines of men. I believe in the orthodox view of the Trinity, but is is such an intangible and can only be supported Scripturally by very thinly conjunctive verses with many “fill ins” that are assumptions. And after all is said and done we are explaining the eternal God Himself, not with what He has revealed to us, but we are reaching up into eternity past and systematizing it.
So if you believe God is three different Persons, or if you believe the three manifestations are one Person, it matters very little. The divinity of Christ is the paramount and non-negotiable doctrine upon which our faith stands.
Yes I certainly agree with you Rick that we need to be careful, but I only wish to point out that Elohim is singular as there are many Jewish people who turn from even considering Christianity because of that word alone, let alone some of the other things that Christians change from the OT.
Agreed. But in this case I think Bell did a respectable job of attempting to see the Trinity in Genesis. It may not have been authoritative but it was edifying, but your point of reading too much into the very nebulous Hebrew language is well taken.
Another Christian debate nicely settled by “Rick the gentle negotiator”