[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

The Mystery of the Trinity

Statement of the Doctrine

“There are then (as the statement may run) three Persons (Hypostases) or real distinctions in the unity of the divine Nature or Substance, which is Love.  The Persons are co-equal, inasmuch as in each of them the divine Nature is one and undivided, and by each the collective divine attributes are shared.  As a ‘person’ in Trinitarian usage is more than a mere aspect of being, being a real ground of experience and function, each divine Person, while less than a separate individuality, possesses His own hypostatic character or characteristic property (...).  The hypostatic characters of the Persons may be viewed from an internal and an external standpoint, i.e. with reference to the inner constitution of the Godhead or to the Godhead as related to the cosmos or world of manifestation.  Viewed ab intra, the hypostatic character of the Father is ingeneration (...), of the Son filiation, of the Spirit procession; wherefore, ‘the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.’ [Westminster Confession, ii, 3].  Viewed ab extra (for Love functions externally as well as internally, is centrifugal as well as centripetal [Cf. S.A. McDowall, Evolution and the Doctrine of the Trinity, Cambridge, 1918, p. 53 f.], the hypostatic character of the Father is made manifest in creation, whereby a world is provided for beings who should be capable of experiencing fellowship with the divine Love; the hypostatic character of the Son in redemption, whereby the alienating power of sin is overcome; and the hypostatic character of the Spirit in sanctification, whereby human nature is quickened and renewed and shaped to the divine likeness.  Yet, while this is said, as there is no separation in the unity of the Godhead, so the one God is manifested in the threefold work of creation, redemption, and sanctification; moreover, each of the Persons as sharing the divine attributes is active in the threefold work, if with varying stress of function.  Verily the doctrine of the Trinity exit in mysterium”  (Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, pp. 459-460).

Joseph W. Tkach Sr. July 27, 1993

“There is one God, and that one God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but not separate.... Therefore, God is everything we can conceive of and more!” (Joseph W. Tkach Sr., July 27, 1993, former head of the Worldwide Church of God.) 

A Godhead of Cosmic Distinctions—Not Separate Personalities

“It should ... be emphasized that the Trinitarian statement is never tritheistic, in the sense of affirming three separate self-conscious and self-determining individualities in the Godhead.  When it is affirmed that there are three Persons in one God, the word ‘person’ is used archaically [philosophically] and not in the modern sense of a centre or core of personality.  It was a word employed by Tertullian [Adv. Praxean, 11f.] as on the whole the best word by which to convey the idea of an inner principle of distinction or individuation (...); and it was a good enough word when it bore a vaguer and more flexible meaning than it bears nowadays in Western Europe.  To say that there are three separate personalities in the Godhead would be polytheism [as we shall soon see, to say that there is a personality or more than one personality in the Godhead is not polytheism].  To say that there are three eternal principles of distinction or modes of subsistence in the Godhead is not polytheism—although in the speculative [by speculative he means philosophic] construction of the Trinity it might lead, and has sometimes led, to a theoretical pluralism or polytheism” (Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 460).

Joseph W. Tkach Sr. July 27, 1993

“There is one God, and that one God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but not separate.... Therefore, God is everything we can conceive of and more!” (Joseph W. Tkach Sr., July 27, 1993.) 

Logos Incarnate: The Basis of Trinitarian Philosophy and Doctrine

“What lends a special character to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is its close association with the distinctive Christian view of divine incarnation.  In other religions [”...we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family, like the Father, Mother, and Son in mediaeval Christian pictures” (W. Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 458)] and religious philosophies [”...the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality, which was suggested by Plato in the Timaeus; e.g., in the philosophy of Plotinus the primary or original Realities (...) [Enn(eads), v.1, cited by C. C. J. Webb, God and Personality (Gifford Lectures), London, 1918, p. 43] are triadically represented as the Good or (in numerical symbol) the One, the Intelligence or the One-Many, and the World-Soul or the One and Many.  The religious Trinity associated, if somewhat loosely, with Comte’s [the father of modern Sociology—modern humanism] philosophy might also be cited here:  the cultus of humanity as the Great Being, of space as the Great Medium, and of the earth as the Great Fetish [Comte’s view of the Chaldean Many].” 

“...we meet with the idea of divine incarnation, but it may be claimed that nowhere is the union of God and man so concrete and definite, and so universal in its import, as in the Christian religion.  As Augustine said, Conf[essions], vii, 9, cf. C.C.J. Webb, Problems in the Relations of God and Man, London, 1911, p. 236], if in the books of the Platonists it was to be found that ‘in the beginning was the Word [logos of philosophy],’ it was not found there that ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.’ 

“It is the very central truth of Christianity that God was historically manifest in Christ, and that He is still revealed in the world as the indwelling Spirit of the Church or community of Christ’s founding.  This Christian faith in the incarnation of the divine Word (...) in the man Christ Jesus, with whom the believer is united through the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, constitutes the distinctive basis of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity” (Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 458).

You see, without the incarnation of the Divine Word, there can be no syncretism of pagan historical religions (irrational mysticism) or pagan philosophic religions (rational mysticism) with New Testament “psuedo-christian” religions!   Without the incarnation of Logos there can be no ab extra (or the philosophic Many) in the philosophic formulation of the Trinitarian creeds!

“...Viewed ab extra (for Love functions externally as well as internally, is centrifugal as well as centripetal [Cf. S.A. McDowall, Evolution and the Doctrine of the Trinity, Cambridge, 1918, p. 53 f.], the hypostatic character of the Father is made manifest in creation, whereby a world is provided for beings who should be capable of experiencing fellowship with the divine Love; the hypostatic character of the Son in redemption, whereby the alienating power of sin is overcome; and the hypostatic character of the Spirit in sanctification, whereby human nature is quickened and renewed and shaped to the divine likeness.  Yet, while this is said, as there is no separation in the unity of the Godhead, so the one God is manifested in the threefold work of creation, redemption, and sanctification; moreover, each of the Persons as sharing the divine attributes is active in the threefold work, if with varying stress of function.  Verily the doctrine of the Trinity exit in mysterium”  (Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, pp. 459-460).

Trinitarianism Not Found in the Old Testament

“The Old Testament could hardly be expected to furnish the doctrine of the Trinity, if belief in the Trinity is grounded (as stated above) upon belief in the incarnation of God in Christ and upon the experience of spiritual redemption and renewal through Christ.  It is exegesis of a mischievous, if [not a] pious, sort that would discover the doctrine in the plural form, ‘Elohim,’ of the Deity’s name, in the recorded appearance of three angels to Abraham, or even in the ter sanctus of the prophecies of Isaiah.  It may be allowed, however, that the OT ideas of the Word of God and the Wisdom of God are adumbrations of the doctrine, as recognizing the truth of a various self-revealing activity in the one God” (Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 458).

Does Old Testament  “Monotheism” Preclude a Plurality of Divine Beings?

The Concept of Unity

“The notion of unity has appeared in Chapter IV, where I discussed some theoretical implications of Aristotle’s theology.  It remains to consider how this notion was actually treated by the early Christian writers and their pagan contemporaries; and this for two reasons; first, because unity was considered to be an important property, or even the distinctive property, of the godhead; and secondly, because discussions of God’s ‘substance’ were increasingly influenced by the claim that one substance was common to the three divine persons.

“Christians of course discovered the notion of unity in the Bible; the Old Testament claims that God is one; the New Testament endorses this claim, but also lays down that there is only one Lord Christ, and refers to the unity of the Christian fellowship in the Holy Spirit.  There is no need to review this biblical material, which is no doubt familiar; in particular, the emergence of monotheism in Israelite and other religions has been thoroughly investigated.  But it is perhaps worth noting that there seem to be in principle two ways in which a monotheistic belief can replace an earlier polytheism.  Polytheism rarely implies a strictly equal society of gods [yet Trinitarianism does—thus philosophic Trinitarianism is pagan polytheistic religious doctrine]; some divinities will normally be greater and more powerful [Christ submits to the Father’s will] than others.  Thus it is possible for one divine being to take the lead so decisively that the others are degraded to the status of attendant spirits, or of mere manifestations or powers of the supreme god.  He then is ‘the one God’ in the sense of the only being who can rightfully claim this dignity” (Stead, Divine Substance, pp. 180-181).

Stoic Monotheism:

Stavrinides’/Kaplan’s Philosophical Approach to Plurality

“Alternatively, a more philosophical approach to polytheism can note the similarities between different deities, and reflect[s] on the drawbacks of a plurality of gods within a single universe; hence comes the suggestion that these may be merely different names or aspects of a single divine reality.  This then is ‘the one God’ [as in the Chaldean Mystery of the One and the Many] in the quite distinct sense of the unitary being who transcends the apparent plurality. 

“It would seem that the first approach to monotheism is much the commoner, and that such was the course taken by the Jews.  

“The second is rarely found in a completely pure form; Stoic theology adopts it in the main [see below for family of elohim Zeus], but is nevertheless still influenced by the old Greek belief that Zeus is the head of the Olympic pantheon [family]” (Stead, Divine Substance, p. 181).

Elohim is A Family of Divine Beings

At the beginning of his very short diatribe, K. J. Stavrinides states:  “When elohim refers to a singular being (the true God or a false god), it takes a singular verb.  When it refers to more than one being [by “being” he does not mean a God with personality; rather, his worldview is closest to the angel worship of the Hellenistic Jews of Christ’s day], as in the heavenly powers (the angels or God and the angels) or in the human powers (the judges), it takes a plural verb.  In neither case does the word elohim refer to a family of beings, whether they are human or divine....”

Stavrinides goes on to say:  “Exodus 18:11 compares the true God with all the false gods (elohim) [of Egypt] and says that none of them is like him.  This is clearly a plural reference, yet not about a family of beings.  It is historically accurate to say that the false gods to which Exodus refers were not members of one family.”

On the contrary, it is quite historically accurate to say that the false gods to which Exodus refers were members of elohim families!  And, as such, they were mere counterfeits of the truly divine Elohim family.  In Exodus 12:12 we read, “For I [the Lord or Jehovah] will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment:  I am the Lord [Jehovah]” (Exodus 12:12).

The Family of Atum/Re: The Elohim of Egypt

Notice E. O. James’ comments on the ancient Egyptian cult of Osiris:  “In the Eastern Delta at Busiris (Per/Usire, or Djedu), the capital of the ninth nome, the cult of Osiris, another ancient ruler who was thought to have been a deified human king [he was, and Nimrod was his human name], was established at an early date.  This death and resurrection cultus also seems to have entered the Nile valley from the East and to have had very close affinities with that of Tammuz in Western Asia.  In both [,] the divine hero personified vegetation and water, and stood in a very intimate relationship with the Goddess associated with birth and fertility and with the kingship.  Nevertheless, the relation of Osiris to his sister/spouse Isis was very different from that of Tammuz to Ishtar, as, indeed, it was to the reigning monarch in Egypt who occupied the throne as Horus, the living son of Osiris, as against the Mesopotamian conception of the king as the instrument and servant of the Goddess.  Exactly how and under what circumstances Horus the Elder became identified with the son of Osiris is still a matter of debate.  It is possible that originally Osiris was the chief and leader of the second wave of immigrants from Western Asia who subsequently was deified after he had introduced agriculture among the indigenous people in the northern part of the Delta.  At first they might have regarded him as a brother of their own god Seth and of their goddess Isis of Sebennytes, who eventually became the deified throne—the ‘throne woman’ who gave birth to the prototype of the living king in his Horus capacity” (James, The Cult of the Mother/Goddess, p.55).

Notice E. O. James’ comments on the Heliopolitan Ennead of the earliest Egyptians:  “In the meantime during the Second Predynastic civilization another group of intruders, coming probably from the Eastern Mediterranean, penetrated the Delta and settled at Heliopolis.   As they were worshippers of Re, the Sun/god, this city which they established at the head of the Delta became the centre of their solar theology, destined to exercise a very profound influence on the subsequent course of development of Egyptian civilization.  It was there in the Fifth Dynasty (c. 2580 B.C.) that its priesthood equated the solar line of kings with their god Atum/Re and then associated him with Osiris in the elaboration of their Ennead in which the gods were grouped in pairs derived ultimately from Atum/Re, the head of the solar pantheon.  Atum having emerged from Nun, the waters of Chaos, at the creation and become an aspect of Re, the personification of the sun, appearing in the form of a phoenix on the top of the primordial ‘sandhill’.  This became the centre of the earth, and on it ‘the House of the Obelisk’ was erected as the great solar temple.  Atum/Re then, mated with himself and produced Shu, the god of the atmosphere, and his consort Tefnut, the goddess of moisture, from whom were born Geb, the Earth/god, and Nut, the Sky/goddess, the parents of Osiris and Isis and of Seth and Nephthys.

The Family of Atum/Re (Chart below taken from  E.O. James)

Atum/Re

|

_________________________

|                                                 |

Shu                         =                    Tefnut

|

_________________________________

|                                                                 |

Geb                              =                               Nut

|

____________________________________

|             |                                                  |                   |

    Osiris  =  Isis                                        Seth    =   Nephthys

“When, after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, Re became the head of this Great Ennead of Heliopolis, he combined in himself all the creative forces in nature and was absolute in his control of his government in the Nile valley.  Therefore, in the Pyramid Age he was equated with Atum, the original Sun/god who created out of himself the rest of the gods standing on the Primeval Hill in the midst of the waters of Chaos (Nun), and so Re was also accredited with begetting the rest of the Heliopolitan Ennead [the nine].  Consequently, he became the self-created Creator, the source of life and increase and the father of the gods as well as the personification of the sun and its manifold aspects”  (James, The Cult of the Mother/Goddess, pp. 55-57).

As we can easily see, this Egyptian elohim was a family!

“The most popular and important of all the maternal goddesses, however, was Isis, the prototype of motherhood and the embodiment of wifely love and fidelity.  Around her myths and legends have accumulated, together with a mystery cultus which have given her a unique position in the Goddess cult, notwithstanding the fact that she was not herself a Mother/goddess comparable to Inanna/Ishtar, or Nut, or Hathor and Neith.  In addition to being the daughter of Geb and Nut and the sister/spouse of Osiris and the mother of his son Horus, in the Heliopolitan Ennead, she was also the daughter of Neith, according to The Contendings of Horus and Set [Shem] in the Chester Beatty Papyrus, which Plutarch represented her as the daughter of Thoth.   Originally, as we have seen, she was a predynastic goddess of the Twelfth Nome of Lower Egypt, Sebennytos, and in all probability it was there that she was first incorporated in the Osiris tradition which came from Djedu, the capital of the Ninth Nome, Per/Usire, the ‘house of Osiris’.  Since her name means ‘seat’ or ‘throne’ it is very probable that originally she was the deified throne, as we have seen, and since enthronement has long been an essential element in royal installation, ‘the throne which made the king’ readily would become the Great Mother charged with the mysterious power of kingship.

“...she was unquestionably the greatest and most beneficent goddess in Egypt, personifying all that was most vital in the maternal principle, its attributes, functions and duties.  Often she has been represented with her son Horus on her lap, like the Virgin and Child in Christian iconography, and in the Book of the Dead and on a stele from a Nineteenth Dynasty tomb at Saqqara she is shown standing behind Osiris in the Judgment Hall.... All the goddesses, however, were concerned with motherhood as their principal function, giving birth to gods, suckling kings and conferring upon them their divinity and immortality” (James, The Cult of the Mother/Goddess, pp. 61-63). 

Judge for yourself if Stavrinides’ conclusion is warranted:

“Exodus 18:11 compares the true God with all the false gods (elohim) [of Egypt] and says that none of them is like him.  This is clearly a plural reference, yet not about a family of beings.  It is historically accurate to say that the false gods to which Exodus refers were not members of one family.” 

Stavrinides is obviously in error!  History bears evidence that elohim does refer to a family of divine beings.

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]