Common Errors on the Trinity

The Limits of Analogy and the Definition of the Trinity

Well, if you have your notes, we began the series last week on the doctrine of the Trinity. The hope was that we'd get through the entire first lesson in one sitting, and that became, as we got about halfway through, we found out that that was a vain hope, that we were not going to make it all the way through.

So we are still in the first lesson. If you have your notes from the first lesson, you can continue. If you didn't bring those notes with you, we handed out notes to you when you came in today, so you should have handouts.

But I want to begin where we left off, and I want to introduce to you a diagram. And I gave everyone a copy of this when we came in. And as I said in our last setting, there is no analogy for the Holy Trinity.

There is no perfect analogy. And yet, I gave you an analogy as best I could. Tonight I want to say there's no diagram which can perfectly express the Trinity either. But I still provide you with a diagram.

And this is not intended to confuse, but as we always do in trying to express the infinite in a finite mind, we have to have something whereby to at least begin to try to understand what it is we're saying.

Trying to contain all that which is God in the mind of man would be like trying to contain the Atlantic Ocean in a solo cup. It just wouldn't work. So, we know that this is a limited, very limited way.

One God in Three Persons

But I want to share, if you remember the definition of the Trinity, I want to share it and how it works with this particular diagram. Because when we talk about God, we say there is one being who is God.

There is one God. Don't let anyone ever fool you. Don't let anyone ever confuse you. As a Christian, historically, we have never abandoned monotheism. Some will argue that we have. But from a historical perspective, the church has always declared from its beginning until now and will continue that God is one being.

There are three persons in scripture who are called God. This is the second, if you remember, we said there is one being who is God. Within the being of God, there exist three persons. Well, there are three persons in scripture who are called God.

The first one is the Father. The Father is called God. The second one is the Son. The Son is called God. Even, I like to reference at certain points, Thomas. When Thomas saw Jesus after the resurrection, what were his words?

My Lord and my God. Called him Koryas, Lord, which I would argue, Koryas in Greek is often how Yahweh, which is the Old Testament word for God, the sacred name of God, is translated as Koryas. So he called him, in a sense, Lord and God, two titles of the divine, theos being the word for God.

Thomas called him that and Jesus didn't say, oh no, you're wrong, get up, I'm not God. No, he let him bow down to him. What happened when somebody bowed down to Peter? Peter said, get up, I'm a man like you.

What happens when somebody bowed down to an angel? Get up. You don't bow down to an angel. We see that in Revelation. But what happens when people bow down to Jesus? He accepts their worship because he's God.

If he were not God, that would be inappropriate for Christ to receive the worship. I've heard the deal with the Jehovah Witness argument is for that, by the way, when Thomas called him, my Lord, my God, they said he wasn't calling him God.

He was saying, oh my God, like the way somebody would make an expression. That's their response is that he wasn't calling him God. He was just saying, my Lord, my God, in a sort of almost like a expression of surprise.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It was the OMG moment of the first century. So who's the third person who is called God? The Spirit, the Holy Spirit is also called God. Now, here is how the diagram works out. If you're if you're trying to think about this particular idea, God or the father is called God.

The son is called God and the spirit is called God. So in that regard, you can say the father is God, the son is God and the spirit is God. We're still maintaining one God, and yet three persons are identified as God.

But the father is not the spirit. The son is not the spirit, neither is the spirit, the son. And the son is not the father, neither is the son, the spirit of the father, the spirit. These three again, what is the definition of the Trinity?

God is one being. There are three persons who are called God, and these three persons are, remember, the three co-equal, meaning they have mutual equality, co-eternal, they have mutual longevity. They've been forever and will be forever.

And then what's the last one I said? Well, I wouldn't say necessarily co-, but I would say distinct. They're co-equal, co-eternal and distinct, right? And the reason why I make that point about the last one, about the distinction, is because when we talk about the father, there are times when the scripture makes reference to the father and not to the son and the spirit, because there are times when it's referencing the son in his humanity, in the father, in his divinity.

It talks about, in fact, Jehovah's Witnesses will often point out that there is a passage that talks about that God is the head of Jesus Christ, you know, and I can't for right now pull that verse out, but some of you may remember the verse in particular, it says the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God, I think is the way that passage, and they look at that and they say, well, here you go, here specifically, God is the head of Christ, if Christ has a head, then he can't be God, right?

Because God doesn't have a head, okay. But in that particular instance, when the apostle Paul is writing that passage, he's referring to the trinity in regard to what we would call the economic trinity.

We have two ways to discuss the trinity, and this is sort of going off my notes, but I do want to mention this because in defining it, this is important. You have what's called the ontological and the economic trinity, that should be an N.

The ontological and the economic, what does the word ontological mean, what is ontology? That which makes something a being, its essence, that which is, you know, when we talk about the, you know, ontologically I'm a human being, I'm a man, I'm made up of spirit and body, you know, you talk about ontology, what something is.

All right. So ontological trinity, there's one God, there are three persons who are called God. These three are distinct, co-equal, co-eternal, right? That's ontology. But when we talk about economic trinity, economic trinity is how do they function together?

In the Nicene Creed and then later in the Athanasian Creed, there is, it says that the father begets the son and the spirit proceeds from the father and the son. That's a term that's sort of an ancient use of the term, that the father begets the son, the spirit proceeds from the father and the son.

In fact, one of the major divisions between the Eastern and the Western Church, that being Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, was the issue of whether or not the spirit proceeds from the father and the son or from the father only.

And it wouldn't make a difference only ontologically or rather economically as to what that means. What did Jesus say about the spirit? He says, I will pray the father and he will send another comforter.

Right. He says, I have to go away so that the comforter can come. Right. And so they make the argument that it's the father who sends the spirit, not the son. So there's a distinction there between Western and Eastern philosophy, the Western philosophy out of which the Reformation comes.

Typically, Reformers would argue that he proceeds from the father and the son. Typically, the Eastern Church would argue that he proceeds from the father only. So therein lies some of the distinction of how the Trinity has been understood economically.

Another way that we talk about the economic trinity is roles. We talk about the father as the one who elects, the son as the one who redeems and the spirit as the one who regenerates and sanctifies. Right.

The father elects, the son redeems. See, there's a there's a there's a there's humanity is all lost. The Trinity, God, the father, God, the son and God, the Holy Spirit made a choice to save. They didn't.

By the way, the Trinity, God did not have to choose to save us. Do we understand that? Right. God didn't have to choose to save. He could have said everyone's going to hell because everyone deserves to go to hell and we would all be going to hell.

He makes a choice to save when he makes a choice to save. He has another choice to make, save all or save some. The reality is God chose to save some men, not all men, because some men will be going to hell.

Had God chosen to save all men, he could have. There are people who don't believe he could have. I believe he could have chosen to save all men. The Bible clearly says he can do as he chooses. He could have chosen that way.

He did not because he glorifies himself both in the salvation of his people and in the judgment of the wicked. God glorifies himself in both. We don't like a lot of people don't think of it that way, but that is what the Bible teaches.

So we see God economically making a choice to save some people. So God chooses to save. That's the election. He chooses whom he will save as well. That's part of the election. But the sun goes to the cross to save those people.

The spirit comes into the heart of those people to change their heart so that they will believe on the sun and be saved. So the Trinity works itself out economically with every person in the Trinity, each of the three having their roles, which are distinct.

In the regard to salvation, so that's what we talk about with ontological Trinity. God is one, three persons who are called God. These three are co-equal, co-eternal and distinct. Economically, the father begets the son.

Well, yeah, the father elects the son, redeems and the spirit regenerates and ultimately is the one who sanctifies. So that brings us that sort of rounds out last time because this is the definition and this chart.

Like I said, feel free to take it home with you. It might be of some help to you. Tonight, we're going to move to the errors, discerning the errors of false views regarding the Trinity. You'll notice on your blank sheet I have given you three blanks for the sake of no one missing one.

I'm going to go ahead and write down the three things. The letter A is modalism, modalism. Letter B is tri-theism, letter C subordinationism, modalism, tri-theism and subordinationism. These are the most typical false views of the Trinity that you will find.

Why Churches Drift into Trinity Errors

And let me tell you where you will find them. You will find them in the church. People have not been taught Trinitarianism, particularly in the last generation or two, because doctrine and theology have been put out.

I watched a commercial. It was online, but it was an online commercial for a church near us. And it was all about how you should come to our church because you will leave feeling good about yourself. And if you want a better marriage and a better life and a better outlook on things, you should come visit our church.

That is idolatry. Why is it idolatry? Because if you come to God to make your life better, you're worried mostly about the idol of self. God deserves to be worshipped, whether or not he makes your life better.

Missionaries live in mud huts, eat one meal a day, have a rough life, but an eternity with God. That's what I always thought these people, what do you tell the guy if your mission is to tell people, come to Jesus and he makes your life better?

What do you tell somebody like Bill Gates? He's got everything he wants. He's got everything in life that anything could ever afford. Come to Jesus, Bill. He'll make your life better. It's already pretty good.

I got so much money, I'm giving it away. No, but my point being is we sell Jesus as a commodity. Come get Jesus, he's going to make your life better. I will tell you that Jesus will make your life better.

But that's not why you come. You come because he's the Lord of glory who deserves to be worshipped. Paul never once in the whole ministry of his missions told anybody come to Jesus because he'll make your life better.

He said God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. And you should repent because he created you. That's the gospel message is that God deserves your repentance because he's God. So that would be my only response is, yes, of course, I believe that when we come to Christ, that our life changes for the better.

But it doesn't always become an easy life. You would agree our life. Hmm. John just promised tribulation. Yeah, yeah. And and that's what Jesus said in this life, you will have trouble. You know, so I just I just it got me when I watched the video, it was like, wow, that's what we have done in the church.

We turned the church into the modern expression of the Dr. Phil episode for your life. Every week somebody is going to get up and say, now, listen here, this is what you need to do if you want to have a better life.

I don't do a good Dr. Phil, but you know, that's that. But that's what we do. But theology is out the door, right? So when you when I say that these three things, modalism, trifeism and civilianism, they are not the cult's teachings only.

They are not housed only in Mormonism or Jehovah Witnesses or oneness, Pentecostalism, civilianism, which is modalism. We'll talk about what that means a minute. Modalism is the number one mistake people make in regard to the Trinity.

By far, because almost every Christian that I've ever spoken to about the Trinity will use the will use the analogy of water, ice and steam. That is not Trinitarianism. But that is modalism.

Just so you know, it starts in the beginning was the word was God and he was in the vision and all things were created by him. I think of him more as a voice of, you know, that he would speak it into existence.

Sure. Well, God is not substantial as we understand substance because the Bible says he is spirit. So when we talk about God as substance, when we talk about that which he is, we understand it's not substantial in a created way as we are.

So in that regard, I would say, yes, God is not substantial in the way that we are substantial, but God is. So he does exist in a form that we do not fully comprehend. Yes. Yeah. But let's look at modalism.

Modalism and the Baptism of Christ

Modalism is also called civilianism. If you want to write that down, you might not want to. I don't know. Civilianism. Why is it called civilianism? Well, because there was a guy named Sibelius who taught this in the third century in Rome.

Sibelius popularized this theory about the nature of God, and thus it has since borne his name. But typically we call it modalism because modalism teaches that God is not in his nature three persons. Remember what I said?

The three stands the three. If you want to think of a three legged stool, God is one. There are three who are called God. These three are co-equal and carternal and distinct. Those three things. That's three legs of the stool.

Modalism says there's one God, but in his nature he is not three persons. Rather, he reveals himself in three ways or what we would call three modes. That's where the term modalism comes from. God shows himself in three modes of being.

This belief has caught fire recently in groups that call themselves oneness groups. If you ever hear a church say we're a oneness church or more simply, you'll hear a group called Jesus only. They say we're Jesus only.

Not sure about that, but I mean, I'm not sure if that name applies to it, but I do know that Jesus only and oneness both speak to a group that is modalism, meaning they would say that God the father was God the father.

But when Christ came to the earth, God the father took on the role of the son. So the mode changes, the mode becomes the mode of the son. Now he is the spirit and often you'll hear him talk about the spirit of Jesus because it's still the spirit.

There's still Jesus because Jesus only and thus it becomes the idea of sort of like what we talked about with water and steam. You know, if you think about water, steam and ice, it's all three a form of H2O, but it's never that all at the same time.

You can't have the same H2O molecule be steam and ice at the same time, has to be one or the other, right? It can't be both steam and ice. It has to be one or the other or liquid, liquid, steam or gas, liquid, gas or solid rather.

And so that's what they say. They say that Jesus, when he was here, he was God, God the father in the Old Testament. You have God the Holy Spirit now and he's ultimately in three forms of being. Where in scripture would we go to address that issue?

You know, that's actually in my notes. That's exactly the answer I say. If you go to Mark chapter one, it says in verse nine, and it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John and straightway coming up out of the water.

He saw the heavens open and the spirit like a dove descending upon him. And there came a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Notice in the baptism of Christ, all three persons are distinctly represented in that moment.

You see the person of Christ, you see the person of the spirit as it were a dove. And you see here, rather, the person of God, the father speaking from heaven. On top of this, many times we see Jesus describing the relationship that he had with God before creation.

John 17, Jesus is praying and he says, what glorify me with the glory that we shared before the world existed. He's speaking to the father of himself. He says we share glory when before the world existed.

So if he is the father and there is no distinction in person, then he's schizophrenic. And I say that a little tongue in cheek, but you understand what I'm saying. It really is creating a problem because it's removing one of the found.

Like I said, if it's a three three legged stool and you take out one of the legs, it still falls over. Well, they've taken out the distinction between the persons. Motalists, yes, they speaks of himself as the divine person, as a divine person.

Motalists, in my opinion, think that they are trying to hold a more rigid doctrine of monotheism than Trinitarians, but all the while they are denying obvious scripture passages concerning the preexistence of Christ.

Here's something to think about when it comes to modalism, because I'll hear people say this. They'll say, if Jesus was God, who is he praying to? Ever heard somebody say that? If Jesus was God, who was he praying to?

That's only a problem if you're a modalist. And that's how I answer. I say I'm not a modalist. I don't have a problem with that question. He was praying to the father because they're not the same person, the same being, but not the same person.

Oh, because I mean, you know, if I was a modalist, that would be a problem. Maybe he was speaking to himself. I'm going to use this for praising his father, but yeah, but if somebody doesn't make a distinction between the father and the son, who is he praying to?

Trinitarians make that distinction because the distinction is made in scripture. Everything about Trinitarianism is founded on the scripture. If we have a problem with Trinitarianism and people and you'll hear people say this, I'm going way off my notes tonight, but I want to say it anyway, people will say, I don't believe the word.

I don't believe in Trinity because the word Trinity is not in the Bible. I'll say air conditioning ain't in the Bible either. But I'm just saying, yeah, yeah, the word Bible is not the word Trinity is not in the Bible.

I don't have an issue with that because when I teach on the Trinity, I'm teaching three statements of faith which are in the Bible. God is one God. There are three persons who are called God. These three persons are co-equal, co-eternal and distinct.

How do I know that? Because they're all spoken of eternally. They're all spoken of with equality and they're all spoken of as different and distinct from one another because they interact with one another.

This is why the definition is so important and why all three must stand, all three legs, if you will, must stand. So somebody says, who is Jesus praying to? He's praying to the father. Why did Jesus pray if he was God?

Because he wasn't an atheist. Why did Jesus pray? Because he believed in God. He loves God. He is God. He's teaching us to pray and he's having fellowship with his father. The father is not the son, the son is not the spirit, the spirit is not the father, but the son and the father and the spirit are all God.

It's not, it is not a contradiction, so long as we understand the distinction between being and person. All right. Letter B, tritheism, modalism says that each person is simply a mode of being. Tritheism goes the other way.

Tritheism, Equality, and the Fullness of Christ

It's just another leg, right? Tritheism says, well, there's three gods. Modalism said there's one God and one person. Tritheism says there's three persons because there's three gods. Immediately, we should take issue with that.

But there are people who believe that each God becomes a figure in a triad. And God is seen as triad. And here's how this is in the churches. And here's how it comes up. People will say Jesus is part of the Trinity.

He's only part of the Trinity if he's a third part. And if he's a third part, then there's three distinctions of being. And if there's three distinctions of being, that's three gods. Don't ever say Jesus is part of the Trinity.

And if you ever hear me say that, know that I'm speaking incorrectly, because if you say Jesus is part of the Trinity, you're saying God can be divided. The Bible says all the fullness of God dwelt in Jesus Christ, not a third.

That's important. And I know it's easy for us to fall into these things. But tritheism is another one of those times where we'll say part, but it's not part. Jesus isn't just part of God. Many non-Christian religions, especially monotheistic religions like Islam, will accuse Trinitarianism as being tritheism.

The truth, however, is that Trinitarianism never divides God. This is why I showed you the first night. I said some people will say this is the way God is. You know, you've got Father, Son, and Spirit.

But again, you're dividing God up. And you say, well, didn't that what you did here? No, that's not what the diagram is intending to do. The diagram is not intending to show you what God looks like. The diagram is intending to say God is Father, God is Spirit, God is Son.

But the Son is not the Father, the Spirit is not the Son. You understand? We're not saying this is what God looks like. Like if you could take a snapshot of God on some kind of celestial Polaroid that you'd get a three piece pie or a pie of three pieces.

The three persons of the Trinity share the being of God. They are not divided. They do not have separate powers. Now, they have distinct roles. They were being invaded. I don't know here. What's that?

The Trinity. I'm going to show in a few weeks, we're going to actually look at the historical side of this, because the doctrine of the Trinity goes all the way back to the apostles. But the formulation of understanding these things.

Well, they might be knocking this around with a lot of different hands involved.

And I'm sure a lot of people in the church, as I said, there was there was there was. There was a time when certain language was formulated, like homoousia versus homoousia versus heteroousia, those things that did take time for for for language to catch up.

But the idea that there is one God, that there are three persons who are called God, and these three persons are co-equal, co-eternal and distinct, that is taught in Scripture. And that was believed by the apostles.

That's not really the question. The question is how long it took for them to formulate the language necessary to explain all that is being said. And we're still not explaining all that is being said, but to be able to fully define what they were saying.

Because, again, nobody questioned. In fact, in the first century, the issue wasn't whether or not Jesus was God. The issue was whether or not he was fully man. That was the big argument, wasn't whether or not Jesus was divine.

That was pretty much everybody understood when you raised from the dead. That's pretty big. You know, that's a big deal. When you ascend into heaven, 500 people watching, nobody really questions whether or not you're divine.

The question is whether or not you were really a man. So the issue of the first century was the issue of his humanity. And we're not going to get into this now, but you could deal with the whole issue of the dual nature of Christ, because Christ is one person with two natures.

God is one being with three persons, but Christ is one person with two natures. He is fully divine and fully human. Call that the hypostatic union, the nature, the union of two natures in one person who is Christ.

He is fully divine and yet fully human. Well, I hope I'm not making you scratch your head. But if you look at the Athanasian Creed and we will in a few weeks, you will see that in the fourth century. Athanasius, the focus was distinguishing true biblical teaching about God, Trinitarianism, from Modalism and Tritheism.

These were major issues and also what we would call Arianism, but we're not even going to get to that tonight. But Arianism is the idea that Jesus wasn't fully God. But of those who believed that he was God, there was the Modalists who believed that there was one God, but he just has three modes of being.

And there was the Tritheists who believed there were three gods. Finally, there's Subordinationism. Now, I mentioned this a few weeks ago, but Subordinationism has actually come back into vogue. Subordinationism has found a new foothold, even amongst some Reformed people.

Subordinationism and the Incarnation of the Son

And we're going to talk later in the series more about that. But essentially, Subordinationism is that though Jesus and the Spirit are both God, they are subordinate to the Father and thus not fully God.

Because in their subordination, they are not essentially equal with the Father. Many verses are cited by those who hold this view, but all of those verses, any time a person uses a verse to try to prove the subordinate nature of Jesus, they will always use a verse that regards his earthly situation.

Because when Christ was on earth and he took on the nature of a man, by the way, he has always been God, but he wasn't always a man. He took on human nature when he came through the womb of the Virgin.

And when he came into the world, that was a taking on of something. He became flesh, right? Isn't that what the Scripture says? The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And in doing so, there was a humbling and a stepping down into a position wherein he would be able to say things like, I've come not to do my will, but what?

But the will of him who sent me. God was just honoring himself, as I see it, in that regard, as far as the Son is concerned. His love for him and everything, it was really glorifying himself as God. Or glorifying the Trinity as God.

Yes, but what I'm saying is in regard to those verses which would seem like Christ is setting himself below the Father, he's always speaking in regard to his human nature, that which he has assumed. And he is glorifying his Father in his humanity.

Christ came not to be God, he came to be the perfect man. He was God. He is God. But he didn't come to be God. He came to be the perfect man. That's what Philippians 2 tells us that. Though he was equal with God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, and took on the form of a servant, so that he could go to the cross and die.

And because he went to the cross and died, now in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess, because he's gone down to humility so that God the Father would exalt him to that position where in the end every person will see him and every knee will bow to him.

So, Christ, in his incarnation, humbles himself. And the text even says, made a little lower than the angels, so that he would become our sacrifice. God can't be sacrificed. God can't die. But Christ, in taking on a human nature, could offer himself up as sacrifice for the sins of the world.

To truly understand the issue of equality in the Godhead, we must remember that Christ was both fully human and fully divine. When touching his divinity, there is no distinction in his equality or his eternality.

But in touching his humanity, there is a distinction in his equality and his eternality, because his humanity is not eternal, in that it had a time and origin, and his equality is not the same, because he came in humble submission as a man.

So, by Christ having two natures, there has to be made a distinction in how he subordinates himself to the will of the Father as a man. So, the three points of the Trinity. There is one God. Right? That marks out tritheism.

There are three persons, distinct persons, who are called God. That kills modalism. These three persons are co-equal and co-eternal. That kills subordination. Remember the three-legged stool. And that's it.

And that's the problem with those three positions. Each one of them has to give up a fundamental definitional point regarding who God has revealed himself to be. This definition is not one that I came up with.

This is the definition the scripture gives us. And each of these groups, in attempting to simplify God's nature, have to deny something he has revealed about himself. So, as I conclude, I would like to say a few words in regard to our ability to grasp this doctrine.

I've heard it said more times than I can remember that it is impossible to comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity. A .W. Tozer says this, Our sincerest effort to grasp the incomprehensible mystery of the Trinity must remain forever futile, and only by deepest reverence can it be saved from actual presumption.

Basically he was saying, only the truly prideful man thinks he fully understands all that which is God. And I agree with him. It's not possible to comprehend all that God is. But it is possible to understand what we're saying and what we're not saying.

And what we're saying is simple. There's one God. There are three persons who are called God. These three persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and distinct. And how this works itself out in infinity is not possible to be understood in the minds of we who are finite.

We're limited by language. We're limited by intellect. We're limited by the fact that God is God and we are not. Yet we shouldn't allow those limitations to keep us from believing the truth. I mentioned this last week, but I want to again reference it as we close.

If somebody comes to me and says, I don't believe the Trinity because I can't comprehend the Trinity. I would say, do you believe that God is eternal? Because if you do, please explain that to me. If you have to comprehend everything you believe.

Comprehension and understanding are not the same thing. I can understand it. Doesn't mean I fully wrap my arms around it. Yes sir?

We can't fully understand it, but we should always try to understand it more.

Absolutely. Absolutely. And I hope that I didn't insinuate anything otherwise. We certainly want to try every day to know better and better about our God. So hopefully this was encouragement to you and a good end to this first lesson.

And we'll let you know about next week regarding after the conference. We may pick this up in two weeks. Let's pray. Father, thank you for the opportunity to study. Thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight.

I pray that this lesson has been encouraging. And that it's been one that will help everyone understand you a little better. In Jesus name. Amen.