Talk:Trinity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New article

Well, it has been my boldest edit in wikipedia so far.
The "new" page is a remake mainly by Mkmcconn, Wesley and myself (but the contents are mainly theirs) which has the following advantages:

• It starts properly (that is, it states "what" the Trinity is)
• Ît covers the subject more clearly and deeply
• It is more readable

Obviously, the fact of putting it here is my and only my act. You may get angry with me but not with the above mentioned users.
Anyway, the fact that there was a parallel project going on was stated in this talk page, as can be seen.
And now, your comments, if there are any.
I have put the disamb. at the top because otherwise it is too far. Pfortuny 11:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Augustine, C.S. Lewis etc... edits

The text of those long edits follows: (apologies)

---

But the Son is "begotten before the worlds", and yet all three are eternal and uncreated. How can this be?

Augustine had this to say regarding the relationship between God and time: "Since, therefore, You are the Creator of all times, if any time was before You made heaven and earth, why is it said that You did refrain from working? For that very time You made, nor could times pass by before You made times. But if before heaven and earth there was no time, why is it asked, What did You do then? For there was no 'then' when time was not. Nor do You by time precede time; else wouldn't You precede all times. But in the excellency of an ever-present eternity, You precede all times past, and survive all future times, because they are future, and when they have come they will be past; but 'You are the same, and Your years shall have no end.' (Ps 102:27) Your years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come, that all may come. All Your years stand at once since they do stand; nor were they when departing excluded by coming years, because they do not pass away; but all these of ours shall be when all shall cease to be. Your years are one day, and Your day is not daily, but today; because Your today yields not with tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Your today is eternity; therefore You begat the Co-eternal, to whom You said, 'This day have I begotten Thee.' Thou hast made all time; and before all times You are, nor in any time was there not time."

In other words, the Son can be both begotten and eternal, because in God's realm there is no time, rather he lives in an eternal present.

C.S. Lewis put it like this in "Mere Christianitty"... "Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment disappears before the next comes along: and there is room for very little in each. That is what time is like. And of course you and I tend to take it for grated that this time series—this arrangement of past, present and future—is not simply the way life comes to us but the way all things really exist. We tend to assume that the whole universe and God Himself are always moving on from past to future just as we do. Almost certainly God is not in time. His life does not consist of movements following one another."

Having understood how it can be that the Son is eternal, having been begotten in eternity, even so, how can it be that he is uncreated? The church draws a distinction between the substance of created things, and the substance of deity. Because the Son is begotten, not made, the substance of his person is that of Yahweh, of deity. The creation is brought into being through the Son, but the Son himself is no part of it.

The church fathers used a number of analogies to express this thought. Irenaeus was the final major theologian of the second century. He writes "the Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God".

Justin Martyr says "just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled another, but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things."

Tertullian says "We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun-there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled."

(...Mkmcconn's paragraph about impossibility of explaining it)

It is often opined that because God exists in three persons, God has always loved, and there has always existed perfectly harmonious communion between the three persons of the Trinity. One consequence of this teaching is that God could not have created Man in order to have someone to talk to or to love: God "already" enjoyed personal communion; being perfect, He did not create Man because of any lack or inadequacy He had. Thus we find God saying in Genesis, "Let us make man in our image".

---

OK. The contents may be (and probably are) interesting. The problem is: they are more about how it can be than about the Trinity. On the other hand, they look like apologetics to me, and I do not think this fits in an Encyclopedia. But this is just my opinion. Pfortuny 17:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For my taste, it is way too apologetic for an Encyclopedia. Could fit in an article like Discussion about the Trinity or similar, but not here. Pfortuny 17:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'll try and tone down the "apologetics", but it is important that the reader understand what the church MEANS by the trinity, not just the bald assertion that there are three and there are one.

Depends on what you mean by understand it may or may not be possible. But would you mind a) discussing it beforehand and b) signing (you write ~~~~ four "tildes" at the end to get the signature). Thanks. Pfortuny 17:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

>Depends on what you mean by understand it may or may not be possible.

Not sure what you mean.

>But would you mind a) discussing it beforehand and b) signing (you write >~~~~ four "tildes" at the end to get the signature). Thanks.

Again, not sure what you mean. I'm new to this Wikipedia.

OK, then, as you are new, would you mind trying to adapt your behaviour to the customs? No offence intended, but before making a long edit to an article, ask for opinions at the talk page (just in case what you are going to insert or delete has already been discussed, for example. Pfortuny 17:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When writing at the talk page, you end by putting four "tildes" like this ~~~~. Then your username and the timestamp appears, as here: Pfortuny 17:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please, bear with my English. You can talk to me at user talk:Pfortuny Pfortuny 17:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the quotations could be retained if they were introduced differently? For instance, I think that questions like "How can this be?" should be avoided; they tend to produce a conversational tone appropriate elsewhere but less appropriate in an encyclopedia. Wesley 18:13, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Not wanting to doubt your perception of the "custom", but the Wik Editing policy says: "Be bold in editing pages; if you can see a way of improving a page, do it."

and...

"Generally, most of us think we should be bold in updating pages. Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we'd make rather little progress. Quite to the contrary, some of us think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately, when you see something problematic, rather than to discuss changes that need to be made. Discussion, from this point of view, is a last resort."

"The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles."

Chrisbitmead 18:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I leave the discussion to others as I am not in the proper mood right now. Sorry. Notice that I like the quoations of Augustine, Lewis, etc... Pfortuny 18:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

Wetman, your edit note indicates that you think that it is not good English to say that "The Holy Trinity is God according to...". What is your thinking, here? Mkmcconn 20:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the change to the introductory paragraphs, going back to saying that the Trinity is nowhere explicitly described in the New Testament. John 1 certainly makes plain that, in the author's view, Jesus is God, but it says little or nothing about the Holy Spirit for instance. While the doctrine may well be Biblical, that is based on the Bible, I think it's fair to concede that the explicit language used at Nicaea does not appear in the Bible. Wesley 03:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John 1 5:7,5:8 has been uncovered as a later forgery [[1]] to support trinitarianism. 24.176.6.165 19:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Augustine, C.S. Lewis, etc.

Explanations are not the same thing as doctrine. The "important information" that keeps coming back, seems to me to be more in the realm of an explanation. And, although it's somewhat a matter of taste, I don't find it particularly helpful, and it makes the article over-long and convoluted. I would like to see it go away, again. Mkmcconn — 02:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

No comment? Then I've moved the material out of the article again. It's pasted below for convenience. With a few comments interspersed. Mkmcconn — 23:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

The church's understanding of how the Son can be "begotten before the worlds", and yet be eternal and uncreated, seems to be rooted in the understanding of God and time.

The relation of God and time is not an issue of dogma, but of speculation and philosophy. The doctrine comes first, based on scripture and other tradition. The explanations come afterward. So, scriptures such as Hebrews 1:1-5, John 1, and from the prophecies concerning the "son"; these come before any speculative explanation. The explanation comes along to justify belief; it is a branch, rather than a "root". Mkmcconn — 23:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Augustine had this to say regarding the relationship between God and time: "Since, therefore, You are the Creator of all times, if any time was before You made heaven and earth, why is it said that You did refrain from working? For that very time You made, nor could times pass by before You made times. But if before heaven and earth there was no time, why is it asked, What did You do then? For there was no 'then' when time was not. Nor do You by time precede time; else wouldn't You precede all times. But in the excellency of an ever-present eternity, You precede all times past, and survive all future times, because they are future, and when they have come they will be past; but 'You are the same, and Your years shall have no end.' (Ps 102:27) Your years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come, that all may come. All Your years stand at once since they do stand; nor were they when departing excluded by coming years, because they do not pass away; but all these of ours shall be when all shall cease to be. Your years are one day, and Your day is not daily, but today; because Your today yields not with tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Your today is eternity; therefore You begat the Co-eternal, to whom You said, 'This day have I begotten Thee.' Thou hast made all time; and before all times You are, nor in any time was there not time."

Thus, as above, Augustine affirms the scriptures that are believed, and accordingly attempts to construct an explanation of how this can be. Such explanations are often considered profitable, but they are not the same as the doctrine of the church. There are other explanations besides Augustine's, so that I'm not sure that material like this should be considered essential to understanding the doctrine. Mkmcconn — 23:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

In other words, the Son can be both begotten and eternal, because in God's realm there is no time, rather he lives in an eternal present.

Belief in the doctrine is not directly affected by whether there is no time in "God's realm". Mkmcconn — 23:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis put it like this [Mere Christianity] "Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment disappears before the next comes along: and there is room for very little in each. That is what time is like. And of course you and I tend to take it for granted that this time series—this arrangement of past, present and future—is not simply the way life comes to us but the way all things really exist. We tend to assume that the whole universe and God Himself are always moving on from past to future just as we do. Almost certainly God is not in time. His life does not consist of movements following one another."

The idea that time is a created thing, seems to have found sound support in modern science with the principle of Time dilation.

I'm not sure that I understand what is being said, here; but I would not want to identify the church's doctrine with some "principle" of "modern science" called Time dilation. Furthermore, speaking for myself, I believe the doctrine of the Trinity, but I do not believe that time is a "created thing". The principle of Time dilation might argue against my beliefs concerning time, but this leaves untouched my doctrine of the Trinity. It seems to me to be irrelevant to this article. Mkmcconn — 23:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I think I agree in principle, although the presence of time (t) as a variable in so many physics equations leads me to think of "time" as either part of creation (if it's a "thing") or a property of creation; in either case, it's something of which God would naturally be independent. But this is just my private speculation; the church's doctrine certainly doesn't depend on this idea, and was formulated long before Einstein's ideas about time dilation, thus presumably without knowledge or benefit of any such theories. Hence, they don't seem terribly relevant here. Might be interesting to mention in a catechism class, but not terribly relevant here. Wesley 04:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

In any case, I am happy the paragraphs have been moved from the article. They add more oppinion than fact. Thanks for taking the trouble, Mkmcconn. Pfortuny 07:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

More on the above

>The relation of God and time is not an issue of dogma, but of speculation and >philosophy.

Dogma? Who defines what is "dogma".

>The doctrine comes first, based on scripture and other tradition. >The explanations come afterward.

Do they? So you claim that when they wrote that the Son is "eternally begotten", they had no idea what they were talking about, they were just spouting words?

I do not think they had an explanation of the dogma. They had a refutation of the opposite and hence they were able to state something in the affirmative. To go on with the example of eternally begotten, if it were not eternally, then there is change in God (or the Son is not God), hence there is no redemption, and God has not come to Earth... But this does not mean I am able to explain what being eternal means (more than the tautological not subject to time. Pfortuny 17:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

And what is "tradition"?? If Augustine isn't tradition, what is?

Well, Augustine is one of the Fathers, but -at least for Roman Catholicism and I guess for all denominations- tradition means the writings of the Fathers as a whole (and not individually). You would find fathers saying funny things about important matters individually. Pfortuny 17:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

>Thus, as above, Augustine affirms the scriptures that are believed, and >accordingly attempts to construct an explanation of how this can be. Such >explanations are often considered profitable, but they are not the same as the >doctrine of the church.

Doctrine does not exist in isolation. If it does, then we can just quote the Athanasian creed and all go home. Doctrines have a context, and if the church defines a doctrine, shouldn't we look to see how the church interpreted the doctrine in order to make sense to the reader? If the reader is so clever, and the Athanasian creed so clear, they don't need Wik, they go read the source documents and be happy. Wik is for people who want to know what it all means.

No, we do not have to try to make sense to the reader, we have to strive to show facts (and doctrine) as it is. Wiki is for people who want to get a bit of information. If you want the whole thing, then go to the sources. Pfortuny 17:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

>There are other explanations besides Augustine's,

Let's hear them.

>so that I'm not sure that >material like this should be considered essential to understanding the >doctrine.

How can I understand "eternally begotten" without explanation???

If you are a Roman Catholic you probably are used to hearing that you cannot fully understand it and that is the key to mystery (in this context, what is hidden beyond complete understanding). You can assert it, you can believe it, but you cannot fully understand it. You can, as in the example above, understand that the contrary is wrong. But this does not mean you comprehend the positive. Pfortuny 17:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

>I'm not sure that I understand what is being said, here; but I would not want >to identify the church's doctrine with some "principle" of "modern science" >called Time dilation.

An opinion, but not one that much of the church shares, considering interest in topics like creation science, etc.

Don't understand the sentence above. Pfortuny 17:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

>Furthermore, speaking for myself, I believe the doctrine of the Trinity, but I >do not believe that time is a "created thing". The principle of Time dilation >might argue against my beliefs concerning time, but this leaves untouched my >doctrine of the Trinity.

I could make that argument about a lot of things in the article. I might not believe in Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, the necessity for trinitarian baptism, "Pagan origins" etc etc. But they are in the article.

If you understand it differently, and you have sufficient historical support for your view, why not quote it?

Because Wikipedia is not about oppinion, it is about facts (and statements of fact).

>the church's doctrine certainly doesn't depend on this idea, and was formulated >long before Einstein's ideas about time dilation, thus presumably without >knowledge or benefit of any such theories.

And Augustine wrote well before Einstein too.

>Belief in the doctrine is not directly affected by whether there is no time in >"God's realm"

You can only believe what you at least have some modicum of understanding of. What does "eternally begotten" mean?

Probably (but this is my oppinion) very little more (if more) than the tautology "not created, not made, and without a beginning". Pfortuny 17:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

> They add more oppinion than fact.

Ok guys, here's the big challenge to you all - prove to me what is a fact and what is an opinion. Is the filioque fact or opinion? Is the distinction between the ontological and economic trinity fact or opinion? Is eternal generation fact or opinion? Is mutual indwelling fact or opinion? Is "intellectual generation" fact or opinion? Is the Wik explanation for the "protestant understanding" of the filioque fact or opinion? That the trinity was borrowed from Pagan sources - is it fact or opinion?

No, it is not that the filioque is fact or oppinion what matters here. What matters here is what the doctrine of the Church is, not what it means, what it refers to or whatever. An explanation is already in the article, but it must not strive to be comprehensive of all. Pfortuny 17:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Presumably the above comments (the lines whithout starting ">" and those which are not my answers) were written by User:Chrisbitmead (and this comment by myself) Pfortuny 17:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Let me attempt to lay out some groundwork definitions that may be helpful, if only to be sure that we're using the same vocabulary. They are I think mostly based on Eastern Orthodoxy, but I think the principles also apply at least to Catholicism and the more traditional branches of Protestantism. "Dogma" means those things which *must* be believed or affirmed to meet the basic criteria of being a Christian. To answer your first question, the Church defines which beliefs are dogma; if you think the Church exists in branches, then each branch of the Church defines what is dogma. In this discussion, I think "dogma" is being used almost interchangably with "fact", which may be confusing. "Opinion" in this context means "theological opinion"; in Orthodoxy they use a word that might be spelled something like "theologoumena" for this, and its a belief or opinion that is not a dogma; Christians are free to affirm or deny it. For instance, for most Christians the Virgin birth of Jesus is a dogma. For Orthodox at least, it's a "theological opinion" that Mary lived a sinless life; some believe this, some don't, and disagreement on this point is considered ok. The heresy article talks about different levels of "opinions" that the Catholic Church defines, according to whether the opinion is likely to lead a person towards belief in the Church's dogmas or away from them. For instance, if you think Mary was "mostly sinless" but not entirely, it remains easy to still believe in the Virgin Birth, but if you think Mary was actually a very immoral person, that might make it harder to believe in the Virgin birth and easier to believe that she instead had a fling with a Roman soldier that she wanted to cover up, for instance. It seems that something like time dilation would also fall into the realm of theological opinion; one could affirm or deny time dilation as a physics phenomena while still either affirming or denying that Jesus is eternally begotten, and the two beliefs wouldn't interfere that much with each other either way, at least in my opinion. That's why I (and I think the others here) call it "opinion".

The next question is how much explanation of doctrine should be in wikipedia. I fully agree that it's not at all obvious what things like "eternally begotten" mean. In a catechism or Sunday School situation, additional explanation is warranted and helpful, with details, illustrations, and so on. For an encyclopedia though, I don't think we should go too far in this direction for a couple of reasons. One, we don't want to try to make this a Christian catechism. That's not its purpose, and trying to do so would eventually lead to inescapable NPOV problems. But documenting significant past and present beliefs is neutral, because it's just documenting what can easily be verified by nearly anyone who takes the time to investigate.

Now my question is, have any published theologians linked Einstein's theories about time with the eternity of God? If not, at least this portion should be removed, as we should not be doing original research or theology in this forum. Wesley 16:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

One other thing. I don't see what the controversy over the filioque clause has to do with time and eternity. It's a question about how best to talk about the relationship of the persons of the trinity; there's no question on either side of the debate that all three persons are eternal. On the other hand, the signature heretical claim of Arianism that the Nicene Council anathematized is "There was a time when the Son was not", i.e. a time when Jesus did not exist. If we keep this section, I'd suggest replacing some mention of that side of Arianism with the mention of the filioque, which seems out of place. Wesley 16:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I have added some answers to Chrisbitmead in his/her text above, but I would appreciate (and I think the others too) bringing questions/controveries/discussions/... one at a time, please. And notice that I do not want to hurt anyone, please. Pfortuny 17:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

doctrine precedes explanations

The doctrine comes first, based on scripture and other tradition. The explanations come afterward.

Chrisbitmead wrote:

Do they? So you claim that when they wrote that the Son is "eternally begotten", they had no idea what they were talking about, they were just spouting words?

There are many things like this. Doctrines are fairly stable. Explanations come and go. Doctrines need not be understood to be believed. Doctrines are believed on the basis that their source is God, not depending on whether they are understood. Mkmcconn — 18:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

And what is "tradition"?? If Augustine isn't tradition, what is?

If you read a few dozen explanations on the begottenness of the Son from a spectrum of historical and contemporary sources, including Augustine, you will not find that this doctrine is connected to theories of time, despite what the deleted section claims about these theories being the "root" of the doctrine. These theories probably do not belong in an article on the Trinity. Mkmcconn — 18:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

---

>There are many things like this. Doctrines are fairly stable. Explanations come >and go. Doctrines need not be understood to be believed. Doctrines are believed >on the basis that their source is God, not depending on whether they are >understood. Mkmcconn — 18:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

That's a very a-historical point of view. The church was coming out with doctrinal statements about the trinity, and the Arians were twisting them and believing them. So the church went back and clarified what they meant. That's why some of the creeds are quite amazingly pedantic.

It's also a non-sensical point of view. You can't believe a bunch of words devoid of underlying meaning. You either believe them as they were meant, you mis-interpret them and thus mis-believe them, or you pretend to believe them. But there is no such thing as believing them without having a modicum of understanding. Sure you can believe some words are "from God" but not know what they mean, but then you don't believe the doctrine you believe that there are some words that are true.

>If you read a few dozen explanations on the begottenness of the Son from a >spectrum of historical and contemporary sources, including Augustine, you will >not find that this doctrine is connected to theories of time, despite what the >deleted section claims about these theories being the "root" of the doctrine.

Apparently you didn't read what Augustine wrote. Let me refresh your memory... "Your today yields not with tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Your today is eternity; therefore You begat the Co-eternal, to whom You said, 'This day have I begotten Thee.' Thou hast made all time; and before all times You are, nor in any time was there not time."

Augustine directly links God being external to time with the begetting of the Son. Now if you have a different point of view, prove it! Otherwise it is just hand-waving and show.

> Don't understand the sentence above. Pfortuny 17:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

People are interested in the relationship between biblical doctrine and science. What is the problem with a ONE LINE reference?

>Now my question is, have any published theologians linked Einstein's theories >about time with the eternity of God?

There's plenty of people thinking about this issue. Lewis is a published theologian is he not? Here is a paper from a college dealing with it.... http://www.behindthegrove.org.uk/resources/essays/God_Time.rtf

>Probably (but this is my oppinion) very little more (if more) than the >tautology "not created, not made, and without a beginning". Pfortuny 17:46, 5 >May 2004 (UTC)

Instead of opinions, let's have have evidence from church fathers.

>No, it is not that the filioque is fact or oppinion what matters here. What >matters here is what the doctrine of the Church is, not what it means, what it >refers to or whatever. -- Pfortuny

The doctrine of the church is important, but what it means is irrelevant? Come on!! Why look up Wik if not to find out what something means? You don't need Wik to read the Athanasian creed. You need Wik to *understand* it in its historical context.

> To answer your first question, the Church defines which beliefs are dogma

Then point me to where I can buy a book or books which is the final word on Christian dogma. Then I can verify for myself what parts of this article are dogma and which are opinion. Don't say the bible because it doesn't mention eternal generation.

>For Orthodox at least, it's a "theological opinion" that Mary lived a sinless >life

Ah huh! But for Catholics it is DOGMA. Thus what is and isn't dogma the OPINION of different churches and persons.

What is and isn't dogma depends on your ecclesiology, i.e. your theology of the Church. For Roman Catholics, it is dogma. For Eastern Orthodox, it is opinion. For the more individualistic Protestants, each person gets to decide what is dogma and opinion. For atheists, it's all a bunch of wrong opinions anyway. Your conclusion seems to be closest to the atheist position as best I can tell. Wesley 16:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

At the end of the day folks, I have taken a quote from a church father that directly addresses the issue of "eternally begotten" to explain to the reader the meaning. To take it down you would have to show either

a) Augustine was out of step with the rest of the church at this point. b) The church was so confused, there are too many theories to discuss.

But to just say "let it be a mystery! Don't tell them what it means!", sorry that doesn't wash.

According to whom? Have you never heard of apophatic theology, in which the theologian simply says "I can't fully comprehend or state what God is, but I can say what God is not. Much of theology, especially in Eastern Orthodoxy, is deliberately vague after a certain point. This is because we believe our theology is founded on divine revelation; grounded and guided by the Holy Spirit. Attempts to go too far beyond what God has revealed, or to get much more precise than what God has revealed based on human speculation or rationalization, are best avoided because they at best run the risk of drifting into human error. This is the problem that scholasticism encountered, that led to things like the doctrine of transubstantiation. Wesley \

In addition, the importance of intellectual understanding to faith and salvation is one of the key issues that divided Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Calabria at the 14th century Hesychast Councils. The councils sided with Gregory Palamas and the earlier fathers he quoted, saying that direct contact and relationship with God could be achieved through prayer, and that intellectual understanding was secondary. Wesley \

Bottom line is that whether leaving it a mystery is theologically acceptable, depends on other parts of your theology. For purposes of wikipedia, in order to remain objective and document what belief(s) about the Trinity are and have been, I honestly think it best to leave out the explanations. Those should be reserved for catechism classes, Sunday School, etc. As an aside, it would be helpful if you would sign your posts. Wesley 16:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

---

The quotes and Wikiquote

Please, Chrisbitmead, at least agree that there are three people editing this article which think it best to put the quotations away. We strive to reach a level of consensus. It is not that we necessarily disagree with Augustine or Lewis, it is that they do not fit in the article as we understand it.

Moreover, a large piece of prayer like that of Augustine is best suited for wikiquote and referred to from here.

C.S. Lewis, on the other hand, is not tradition or dogma and his explanation is as good (i.e. as bad) as any other.

I suggest you start a new article on Explanations of the Trinity, if you think the content is necessary. It may be linked from this one, but this one is just about the doctrine, not the explanations. I cannot speak for other denominations, but in the Roman Catholic Church, no explanation is adopted as doctrine in what concerns this mystery. Pfortuny 07:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Chrisbitmead, your posts here are not very legible, and hard to respond to.

You are right that I did not read the Augustine quote closely. I can agree with you to keep that portion of the quote directly relevant to the section; my primary target is the speculation concerning the relationship between time and eternity as a "root" of the doctrine. Please consider adding to the article on Eternity. But for this article, the excursis on eternity is distracting in my opinion; and over-long. Mkmcconn — 16:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Proof people. Proof!

Guys, this is not resolved, and here's why. I've quoted a church father to show that these terms actually meant something to the ancients.

I'm providing another Augustine quote below as well as a quote from Cyril of Jeruselum, Gregory of Nyssa and Athanasius that directly link the issue of the timelessness of God with the eternality of the begetting of the Son. Their conclusion is that the Son is begotten apart from time, not in time. So that's now FOUR church fathers. As a bonus I also quote Pope Leo the Great who says that the Son exists without time.

Where is the corresponding evidence that the ancients were ignorant of what they were talking about when they wrote the great creeds?

Wesley says that the modern orthodox church claims ignorance of what the details of the trinity doctrine mean. Fine Wesley, the Orthodox church is big enough that it deserves a sentence to that effect. But there is also the historical church to deal with. Who is going to provide the proof that the historical church was similarly happily ignorant?

You see guys, I provide proof, you are providing assertions. I explain what eternally begotten means from the fathers of the church. You seek to keep the reader ignorant. I define doctrine by documenting historical meaning. You want doctrine to be stripped of meaning.

And even that's ok as an _alternative_ viewpoint IF you can prove a big chunk of the church goes along with that point of view. What's important is not a consensus of Wik contributors, but actual proof from the church that it is happily ignorant. And since I am interested in the historical church, that means a quote from a church father that says "this is all too mysterious, and we don't want to talk about what eternally begotten means".

Proof, people! Not claims! Explanation, not obfuscation!

"As for the Son of God, indeed, He could be born perfect, because He was begotten WITHOUT TIME, coeternal with the Father, long before all things, not in age, but in eternity." -- Augustine "it is vain to conceive of the past times of God's rest, since there is no time before the world." -- Augustine

"As the Son of David, He is subject to time, and to handling, and to genealogical descent: but as Son according to the Godhead, He is subject neither to time nor to place, nor to genealogical descent: for His generation who shall declare? God is a Spirit; He who is a Spirit hath spiritually begotten, as being incorporeal, an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation. The Son Himself says of the Father, The Lora said unto Me, Thou art My Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. Now this to-day is not recent, but eternal: a timeless to-day, before all ages. From the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten Thee." -- Cyril of Jeruselum

‘Older’ and ‘younger’ and all such notions are found to involve intervals of time; and so, when you mentally abstract time in general, all such indications are got rid of along with it. Since, then, He who is with the Father, in some inconceivable category, before the ages admits not of a ‘sometime,’ He exists by generation indeed, but nevertheless He never begins to exist. His life is neither in time, nor in place." -- Gregory of Nyssa

"For such as he that besets, such of necessity is the offspring; and such as is the Word's Father, such must be also His Word. Now man, begotten IN TIME, in time also himself besets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word also is over and continues not. But God is not as man, as Scripture has said; but IS EXISTING and IS EVER". -- Athanasius

For God the Son of God, the only-begotten of the eternal and not-begotten Father, remaining eternal "in the form of God," and unchangeably and WITHOUT TIME, possessing the property of being no way different to the Father.

It seems to me that these quotes do not add anything further than what is already economically stated in the article, and as explained with one brief quote. But these quotes don't really say any more than the name of the doctrine says, do they? They simply say that the begottenness of the son is eternal - that is, not temporal, not in time. What I was concerned about before was the length that the article went to, through two very long quotes, to try to explain what it means to be outside of time - what the experience of God must be like, and so forth. It went on for a long time to say more than needed to be said in this context to explain what the begottenness of the son means. The relevant portion of the Augustine quote was included - why isn't that enough? Furthermore, I don't see anything in the above quotes that argues for the inclusion of the "time dilation" comment - which I really do think is irrelevant. Mkmcconn — 20:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Section needs work

I cut this section from the article because it was in the wrong place, and needs some work to make it more encyclopedic. Something reflecting these views probably belongs in the section on Dissent. Gdr 17:51, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

Description of God in the Bible

It is pure speculation what the true early church believed about the trinity after the books of the Bible have been written, since the counterfeit „church“ was already in existence ( I John 2:18-19 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.) and we don’t know how to separate their writings. So when we want to find out the truth, we have to look at the latest writings in the Bible, which are the writings of John, and reflect the opinion of the early church.

John wrote that Jesus is the Almighty and the true God. Furthermore Jesus has the seven spirits of God. Please note that the number seven denotes completeness, I do not think that Jesus has seven spirits in the literal sense. Jesus is truth, and the Holy Ghost is the spirit of truth, so the Holy Ghost is the spirit of Jesus.

So the picture that John draws is that Jesus is the one and only God.

This is in opposition to the trinity, Jesus is just the second person of the trinity. And there is no third person, since the Holy Ghost is the spirit of Jesus. The idea of the trinity arised with the following verses: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: And: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Both verses have been shown to be later additions.

But still there is the dual nature of Jesus: the Father and the Son, God is Love and Jesus is Truth, Son of Man and Son of God, God is a spirit and Jesus is the word made flesh.

On the one hand we have Jesus the man, who eats and breathes like every other man, and Jesus, who is the Word which created the universe. God can be both, only the contradiction of his word, the truth, is impossible. God can’t be a spirit and God in the flesh at the same time, therefore God became the Son of God and the truth remained intact.

The Revelation of Love and Truth emphasize that they belong together: True Love

Ralf Biermann, tripleseven(at)t-online.de

This would only belong in the Dissent section if it were representative of some church, denomination, or other religion or movement. Based on what's written here, it looks like it might be nothing more than one person's personal interpretation of the New Testament with regard to the Trinity. After all, it's partly written in the first person, and signed... Wesley 16:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me that the whole concept was a convoluted compromise to try to resolve inherent anomalies in Christian Theology which subsequent theologians have tied themselves in knots trying to justify. I think it's worth not being a Christian just to avoid having to think about it!

Exile 10:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't blame you for feeling that way. For what it's worth, I think the doctrine of the Trinity is ultimately more philosophically and theologically sound than any I have come across. It has many profound practical implications for psychology, sociology, ecclesiology, and so forth. The importance of these practical applications is part of why the doctrine has received and continues to receive so much attention. Wesley 16:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, this is a great page and the information is entirely accurate and NPOV, which is an amazing achievement (this is literally the best page I have yet come across on Wikipedia). Second, are all the people who come and work on this, (edit and so forth), Christians? Doesn't it make since that for something so doctrinal and hard to understand by outsiders that Christians who believe in the trinity write on this page? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and the page is great, but I just wondered, and it just makes since.--naryathegreat 22:32, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Narya, most contributors to this article probably are Christian (though remember different people unfortunately have different definitions of Christian). But you're right, it makes great sense that people from all perspectives contribute in order to help achieve the most neutral and unbiased work possible. Chris Rodgers 07:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can't speak for all contributors, but I do know that the contributors include an Orthodox Presbyterian, a Roman Catholic, and an Eastern Orthodox Christian; I think that diversity has strengthened the article. Wesley 11:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, you say that the Trinity "has many profound practical implications for psychology, sociology, ecclesiology, and so forth". Would you care to elaborate? I can't see any relevance of the Trinity to any of these. You also say that the Trinity is "ultimately more philosophically and theologically sound than any I have come across." How can this be, when the very dogma itself is totally illogical? I suggest that you need more exposure to alternative Christologies. Teutonic Knight

Alleged Pagan Origins

Wesley, I've clarified your objection slightly with allusion to when this began. Most historians acknowledge that the formal trinitarian formulation may even have been a slightly minority view preceding the first Council of Nicea, but it definitely came to be imposed by force once anti-Trin views became proclaimed as "heresies". The emperor Constantine placed unity above respect for any form of dissent, however, and as I recall may even have poured molten lead down the throats of some recalcitrant anti-Trinitarians (ah, ain't we Christians known for love).

More importantly, however, NPOV really requires that your objections be placed in the upper area arguing on the doctrine's behalf, rather than interjected at convenient points in the counterargument, or someone like me might pepper the upper article itself with polemical disagreements. So again, basic neutrality. Regards, Chris Rodgers 05:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have copied the "Alleged pagan origin" section, copyedited but essentially intact, over to the Nontrinitarianism article. We might want to consider if it should now be cut from here. --Gary D 06:45, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

What?!

1. Why is there that very confusing opening definition before the Introduction to this article? The opening sentence of the Introduction is a much better topic sentence for an NPOV article. The very first sentence also refers to Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and most Protestants, leaving out Catholics who are not RCs.
2. There are a lot of redundant links in this article.
3. Can we be careful not to write 'Catholic' (not even with a big 'C') when what we mean is 'Roman Catholic', and not to say 'Roman Catholic/Catholicism' when we mean 'Catholic' or 'Catholicism'? In two instances here I cannot tell which the author meant.

It's a lovely article; I don't mean to nit-pik and I don't say that I could have done any better, but these minor issues are nevertheless important. Quill 08:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I merged the two paragraphs to make a new introduction. Mkmcconn — 16:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Starts learning at Baptism?

In practice, what a Christian begins to learn about the Trinity starts with Christian Baptism.

Huh? That may be true in some traditions, but it makes zero sense in many. In many traditions a person would not be baptized until coming to understand sin and the accompanying concept of alienation from God the Father, along with the atoning work of God the Son. Thus an elementary understanding of the Trinity is present. In other traditions, one is baptized as an infant and learning does not occur until much later. Jdavidb 17:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"starts with" is not the same as "starts at". Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. This is symbolized in many Catholic and Orthodox churches by placing a baptismal font near the entrance to the nave; corporate worship begins with, among other things, each person remembering their baptism as they come in. Wesley 01:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

disambiguation?

From the article:

This article covers the Christian views on the Trinity. For other uses of trinity, please see the disambiguation page. This entry refers to the religious, spiritual, or philosophical uses of the word.

Why put this in the begining? Since Hindu belivers and others (Ancient Egypt for example, which is much more interesting to me than religions that are alive and can be learned by walking a mile to a church) have a concept of a trinity wouldn't it be just great if there was a heading/section titled "Trinity in other religions" or some such thing? Change the above to say something like:

"This article mainly covers the Christian Trinity and its religous, spiritual or philosophical meanings. For other trinity myths|views|whatever see below. For other uses of the word trinity, please see the disambiguation page"''

Maybe it's silly, I just think this isn't NPOV (I use wikipedia for history mainly, you know). Well, either way that's my 2 cents, thanks for your time.JoeHenzi 06:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thought about it some more. Basically I don't think people come to wikipedia to learn about their religion. Know what I mean? People come here, I hope, to learn about other religions... links to various beliefs in one article seems critical for those trying to understand the overall ideas of theology. I've come here and looked into stuff about my own beliefs, to clarify names in my texts, etc... but often that leads me to similar belief pages. Nothing is cooler to me than seeing something like "...this belief is similar to the Invisible Pink Unicorn's belief that God..blah.blah...." Often times it allows me to understand my own texts more, comparison allows me to fill in gaps. Sorry again, don't flame me :) JoeHenzi 06:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure of exactly what you're proposing. Do you think that trinities of other religions should be in additional sections on this page, rather than on their own pages? Is Trinity a more appropriate place to have information on the Hindu trinity than the present Trimurti article, for instance? Wesley 16:28, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'm asking for an additional section... but I'm at a loss to find more "trinities" for it. Maybe a quick sections saying what Trimurti is and a *quick* comparison of the two (which would naturally link to Trimurti). But, as I can't find more information with my limited resources I'll be happy with what we've got. Just throwing ideas about, no big deal : ) JoeHenzi 10:56, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Trinity (disambiguation) page shows that there are a significant amount of relatively common meanings for "Trinity". In fact, a Google search for "Trinity" will give you many pages of "Trinity" as a proper name (of a college, univeristy, movie character, county, etc.), long before the religious concept is to be found. Thus, I'm wondering if it would be more useful (and possibly NPOV) to make Trinity the disambig page and have the current page prominently pointed to by it (and perhaps renamed to "Trinity (religious)". Thoughts? --Ds13 07:52, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

You look up Atlantic, and you don't get a page offering you the ocean and the magazine and the town in Iowa, on an equal NPOV basis. You get the Atlantic Ocean — far and away the biggest most important "Atlantic" around — and a chance to disambiguate from there. Similarly, even from a completely neutral point of view, the Christian concept of the Trinity is incomparably the biggest of all the things that are called by this word. In terms of impact on literature, art, music, history, language — what compares? The town in Alabama? You don't have to be a Christian to acknowledge that by any rational measure, Christianity is one of the main things in human history — bigger than Oxford University, bigger even than The Matrix —, and the Trinity is a central concept in Christianity. So ... I think we're disambiguating just right. Frjwoolley 23:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Apostles' Creed

Why is the Apostles' Creed included in the lead paragraph as affirmation of the Trinity? Although it refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it does NOT include any language that relevant of the central tenets of the Trinity, (that is the co-equal and co-eternal nature of the three).

In fact, the WP Apostles' Creed has this comment:

"It does not address some of the Christology issues associated with the later Nicene Creed ..." Those issues would include the Trinity, the very point under discussion!

For these reason I believe that this reference should be deleted or moved elsewhere in the article. Thoughts anyone?--DannyMuse 17:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Question from a nontrinitarian

I'm a Jehovah's Witness and I live in Japan, Buddhist country. Then I can't understand trinity. And I'll ask you, trinitarians:

1. Do you believe trinity is truth?
2. If so, can you proof that trinity come from Bible? Or is trinity secret doctrine among trinitarians? Or does it only come from Apostles' Creed?
3. Some trinitarians say that Jesus Christ is God and others say that Jesus became God after his death. Which is right doctine?

And this is what I can't believe trinity:

1. Jesus was called "son of God", not "God the Son". (Matt. 16:16) This title is used for angels in the Old Testament. (Gen.6:2; Job 1:6. See 2 Peter 2:4)
2. Bible says that sons must obey his father, and each are not equal.(Pro.6:20; Eph 6:1) This direction must be applied to Jesus Christ and God.
3. In the Bible, holy spirit is not called God, and it doesn't coordinate with Jesus and God. (Matt.12:32) It is not the person (Acts 2:4).
4. Matt.28:19 doesn't proof that trinity is right. This scripture doesn't say that God, Jesus, and holy spirit is equal.

So, please answer. Rantaro 12:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course we believe the Trinity is the truth. We can only know God if He reveals Himself to us, and He has revealed Himself as existing in three persons, yet sharing one essence. It is the faith into which Christ commanded his disciples to baptize Christians, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (The verse does teach that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person with a name, not someone else's "force".) God does not change, so the Father has always been the Father, the Son has always been the Son (eternally begotten of the Father) and the Spirit has always been the Holy Spirit (eternally proceeding from the Father). I don't know who teaches that Jesus became God after his death, unless maybe the Mormons. Wesley \

The Bible by itself can be made to say literally anything. Here is a "Bible story" I once heard from a Palestinian lawyer he told when someone in my sociology class asked whether the establishment of modern Israel fulfilled Bible prophecy: "A man was riding in a chariot, reading the book of Isaiah. Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading. How can I understand if no one explains it to me? And as he was riding, his hair was caught in a tree and he hung there. And Jesus came and said, 'Come down from that tree, for I am going to your house today.' And behold, there was a red sash hanging from a window. Jezebel stuck her head out the window, and the man of God said, 'throw her down from there!' Peter asked, 'How many times? Seven times?' Jesus answered, 'No, not seven times, but seventy times seven.' And they threw her down. And afterwards, the disciples gathered up all the pieces, and behold, there were twelve basketfuls left over." I've paraphrased it from memory, but every sentence is from somewhere in the Bible; they're just not put together the way they were intended to be. This is why it is essential to interpret the Bible as the Church has consistently interpreted it; otherwise, we could wind up with anything, and experience has shown this to be true if you look at the wide array of competing, contradictory denominations, all claiming to be "Bible based." Wesley \

First, second and third century Christian documents clearly reflect a belief that Jesus is God. This same belief was expressed in greater detail until the Nicene Creed. Belief in some other kind of Christianity appears to rely on a hypothetical, imaginary sect that left no historical evidence of its existence, as best I can tell. Wesley \

A book that explains the Trinity in Eastern, Taoist terms is titled Christ the Eternal Tao, written by Hieromonk Damascene. It includes both prose and Taoist style poetry, comparing the sayings of Lao Tzu with the Prophet David. It might at least explain the ideas and concepts in terms that might be more familiar to you, if you can find a copy. Forgive me for sharing a brief excerpt: " Before the world was made, The Mind, Word and Breath were One, Sharing in the One Essence, above all essences.... The Mind, Word and Breath had this perfect love between them. Not only did They have this love, They are this love. Therefore, love existed before the world was made." I hope and pray that this sheds a glimmer of light and does not merely raise more confusion. Wesley 05:27, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, Wesley. Then I'll give you some questions.

1. Does your "Bible story" mean the Apocrypha?
2. Do you mean that trinity has no relation to the Bible canon?
3. Do you believe that early Christians documents are in harmony with the Bible canon? or that Bible canon is error?
4. Is your belief based on the Bible canon, or "Bible story"? Rantaro 06:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That 'Bible story' is not taken from the Apocrypha, but from a hodge podge of verses from both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, all taken completely out of context. (I hoped you would have recognized them.) For instance the red scarf hanging out of the window was hung by Rahab outside the wall of Jerrico, and has no connection with the palace window out of which Jezebel stuck her head. Jezebel really was thrown out the window of her palace and died, but the twelve baskets of pieces left over were not pieces of Jezebel at all, but pieces of bread and fish after Jesus fed the multitudes. Other sentences came from other Bible passages. The point is that sola scriptura, taken to the extreme of misquoting and misusing Bible verses without any regard for Church tradition, can lead you to any doctrine at all. And this is what I think has happened as a result of the Bible studies of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Wesley \

I think that the doctrine of the Trinity is consistent with the Bible and implied or supported by various Bible passages, but is not spelled out explicitly. In other words, the Nicene Creed is not found word for word in the Bible, but neither does it contradict the Bible. Wesley \

I think that early Christian documents are in harmony with the Bible. The books of the New Testament themselves are of course the most reliable early Christian documents, written by early Christians. The canon of the New Testament was finally finalized by Christians in the fourth century. The list of 27 books now accepted by all Christians was first proposed by St Athanasius of Alexandria, who was also a staunch supporter of the Trinity and opponent of Arius. If Jehovah's Witnesses trust Athanasius to help define the New Testament canon, shouldn't you consider how he interpreted the Bible with respect to the Trinity? It was also the early church that decided to retain the Jewish scriptures in the Bible, rather than discard them as Marcion of Sinope and some others wanted to do. Wesley \

My belief at this point is based on the Tradition of the Church. The primary element of this Tradition is the Bible, follwed by the teachings and practices that have been handed down and preserved from the first century until now. Thanks be to God. Of these, there are distinctions made between dogmas and theological opinions, depending on degrees of certainty and degrees of importance. Wesley 17:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then do you mean you trust Athanasius rather than Jesus Christ? Why must Christians trust Athanasius to help define the New Testament canon? Why must we quote and use Bible verses with Church traditions? I mean, do Church traditions really consistent with the Bible? I don't think so. Obviously, the Bible says that Christians have to avoid the idol worship(1 John 5:21), but Churches have ignored this order. And Christians have to avoid wars or battles (Matt.5:44), but Churches have ignored this, too.

I say again about trinity, the Bible don't say that holy spirit is God. Bible says that the holy spirit is 'filling' people, they was 'baptized' with it, and they were "anointed" with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These expressions would not be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person.

Jesus also referred to the holy spirit as a "helper" (Greek, parakletos), and he said that this helper would "teach," "bear witness," "speak," and 'hear.' (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) It is not unusual in the Scriptures for something to be personified. For example, wisdom is said to have "children." (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are spoken of as being kings. (Rom. 5:14, 21) While some texts say that the spirit "spoke," other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matt. 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with 21:10, 11.) At 1 John 5:6-8, not only the spirit but also "the water and the blood" are said to 'bear witness.' So, none of the expressions found in these texts in themselves prove that the holy spirit is a person.

I pick up Matt.28:19 again, this passage don't say that holy spirit is a person. The expression "in the name of" is also used for inanimate objects. For example, when we use "in the name of law", we don't think law is a person. Then I think this passage don't prove that the holy spirit is God. Rantaro 14:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jumping in with one quick comment. Wesley, your Athanasius argument is a fallacy. A person may be in error in one respect, yet be employed to divine purpose in others, conceivably in spite of himself. By your logic, you should subscribe categorically to all doctrines of Roman Catholicism since Athanasius may also have recognized an (imho untenable) Roman primacy. Those of us who disavow arguments from mere authority instead recognize the error of your first line. (Rantaro, good observations; I trust you saw some of the anti-Trinity links at the end of the article; they're quite useful.) Regards. Chris Rodgers 03:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True, no single Church father can be presumed correct in everything he ever wrote. They can be found to contradict each other and even themselves. Same goes for most of us. That's why we talk about the tradition of the Church as a whole, and make all of them subject to the God. My point remains, that if you decide to completely ignore the church's Tradition and just "read the Bible for yourself", you can wind up with anything at all, with no assurance that you're in line with what Christ taught. In fact, why not decide to add some books, or remove some other books you don't like, as Martin Luther and the other Reformers in fact did? If you mostly agree with your denomination, then you are accepting your denomination's tradition, whether you like to admit it or not.

At this point I think I have to back up and say that we should return to discussing any possible changes or improvements to the article. If anyone wishes to continue the conversation by email, you can email me through the link on my User page. Wesley 06:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can trinity be truth? And all of us have the right to believe and do as we choose too. However when you are trying to prove something it should be bagged up by facts. Christianity is a spin off of Judism. The Jews in the earlier times believe in one god and worshipped one God. They didn't not worship many Gods. My point is the purest form of something can always be found in it's very beginning. The Jewish in early times believed the Messiah would come and be there savior and also take into account that all of the bible was not written during that time. Worship was a bit more simple too since it was just God they were serving. Also in the bible God wanted his people to serve only him and no other Gods. Then would it not be true that theses people would have been taught the trinity and pass it on down to other generations. No where do we find this in the bible and nor was it passed down. We have no account of that happening in history.

In Jesus time also think about this as well the forefathers of the Jewish taught to serve only one God so also during Jesus time it would be logical to think that this was also taught during his time as well. No where in the bible does it say that Jesus said he was the God,father and holy spirit. Jesus also spoke in reference to God as being his father and Jesus didn't say he was God. The apostles of Jesus the ones that are closest to him in the new testament spoke of Jesus as being the son of god and not God himself. After the death of Jesus there we people that arose out of christianity who would lead people away with there false teachings. This is also foretold in the bible that wolves would rise from amongst the sheep to lead them away with there false teaching and to draw away crowd after themselves. This too happened we see today many forms of religions that had come from the origin of christianity.

Then a few centuries later in the third and fourth century a ruler, by the name of Constantine called an assemble of priest and popes together to explain the bible and teaching of christianity. Theses group of men come up with doctrins. Doctrine are from Latin doctrina, (compare doctor), means "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. Should we trust the teaching of imperfect men to tell us about the bible or God? The Trinity cannot be true if it is borne through the empty teachings and philosphes of man and not inspired by God. What one mans says is right about the bible and believes to be true and becomes law to teaching of a church is wrong. A person should read the scriptures along with there teach and study them and not go by blind sight alone. Only if a person searches and looks for truth will they find it. With the case with Constantine and his assembly of priest this was not the case. Power and what they felt was right for the people to believe was at stake and not the truth.

Up until this point christians were being perscuted for being different and serving in their own way. Somehow being different seems to always threaten people. The truth is doctrines are false because they are made up by man of what they think something should mean and not borne through spirit by God as the forty men who wrote the bible. Think if the trinity was true why are people only looking to the book of John and not the whole entire bible for trinity references. The reason is because you can't find a reference in all books of the bible about trinity. And the scriptures you do have to try and prove trinity and hell fire doesn't prove with in the reason of a doubt to be correct. There are still questions in the air about everything.

If you look at the bible everything and everybook goes along with each other if you look at it without the thinking of trinity. To my conclusion there is only one God and it was taught at the beginning with the early christians and should still be so. Jesus is God's son and died for all of ours sins and he is everyone's savior. God is father and the holy spirit is Gods active force. Jesus never claimed to be three people and neither does the bible claim God to be three people. In the beginning God was worshipped as one person and still should to be remained to be so.

You see christianity god polluted inbetween with the empty doctrines of men. All of us should worship god with spirit and truth and that is as one god and not three gods. As one person and nor by idols. God has not changed his teaching nor has he changed over time for he is always the same. Man is the one who changes and adds there empty teachings to christianity. God says in revelation 22:18, 19 that anyone who adds to the bible he will add to them the plagues written in the scroll and the ones who take away from the bible that God will take away his portion from the tree of life. The churches are adding there doctrines to the bible making them as truths of the church instead of thinking about the truths of God. Also before I close in Revelations it 22:13 it God say's "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." There is no one else but him as being the one and only true God and note that it doesn't say we are the alpha and the omega as in terms of three people but just one.

That is all I have to say on this subject. I respect of people religions and beliefs but trinity doesn't not seem to be found to stand up to be true in no form or fashion.

I'll try to answer some of your points very briefly. First, I agree that Jesus never claimed to be three persons, much less to be three Gods. Christians believe that Jesus is one person, and that there is only one God who exists in the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; these three share a single divine essence and nature.

You object to "doctrines of men", yet appear to support the religion of the Jews. Their doctrines were also "doctrines of men," that is, teachings they claimed to have received from God which they then handed down person to person, and generation to generation. Christians also claim to have received revelation from God, and to have handed it down person to person, generation to generation. If you are a member of a religious group, you have probably received teachings from previous members of your religion. If you have children and teach them your religion, then you are also passing on your own doctrines to the next generation. In short, the existence of doctrines or of traditions by itself does automatically validate or invalidate those doctrines and traditions.

Regarding Revelations 22:13, those words were spoken by Jesus: "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches." (verse 16) Again in verse 20: " He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming quickly.' Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus! " Christians find support for Christ's divinity here, in all four Gospels, and the rest of the Bible. You and I can disagree about how to interpret this or that verse, but Christians throughout history have believed that Jesus is God come in the flesh. See my Talk page for the recent conversation with Rantaro on this subject.

Having said all that, is there some way you think we could improve the article? Wesley 17:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Attribution

Regarding this new paragraph:

Some consider that the trinitarian formula is essentially nonsense, and that professing that one "believes" in it is essentially professing a belief in something meaningless. The justification for this view is based on the idea that each member of the trinity is alledged by its proponents to be fully God with each member sharing in, or existing as, the totality of the divine substance, and yet they are not one another.

While I have no real objections to the content of this paragraph, would it be possible to attribute it to an author, or to a group of people such as (perhaps) nontrinitarian Christians, or atheists, or whatever group whose members generally believe that the trinitarian formula is nonsense? Giving it attribution ought to strengthen the paragraph, and would avoid the use of "weasel words". Wesley 03:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

history section

why is the section on the history of the notion buried towards the end of the article? It is common practice to give an overview of historical developments at the beginning. The section itself is also either weasly or confused. There is no information as to the status of the concept prior to Nicaea, and possible origins are listed under "dissenting opinions". Afaik, it is undisputed that the concept arose around 300, and the pagan parallels are not so much dissenting opinions, but suggestions for possible origins. (I mean, you can be an orthodox Christian, accepting Trinity as integral to Christianity, and still wonder where the concept originated. It was not taken from Judaism, to be sure, and it is not in the Gospel) dab (ᛏ) 08:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it is not undisputed. The doctrine of the Trinity is seen in both the Old and New Testaments, and is evident in the earliest Christian writings both in and outside the New Testament. An orthodox Christian believes the doctrine of the Trinity is true because God has revealed it; without God's self-revelation, it would be impossible to know anything at all about the nature of God. What you suggest is like saying that a Christian can believe that God exists while at the same time wondering how mankind first invented the idea that God exists. It would be internally contradictory. Wesley 04:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Genesis 18:1-16

This statement: "It is seen clearly in Scripture as early as Genesis 18:1-16." How is it "clearly seen"? This is definitely POV, as obviously the "clearly" is a subjective term. These series of scriptures simply states three men are present before Abraham and that God speaks to him through them (or through one of them).

It could just as easily be stated that "clearly" according to Acts 7:55, the trinity in "clearly" disproved. Note the various positions of the three in question, the father, son & holy spirit/ghost; it becomes clear that in a spiritual state each of these occupies a distinct position and not one of a single entity. We could go tit for tat with points such as these, clearly highlighting distinct POV's.

Netkinetic, I've put the reference back in, but by attributing it instead of calling it something "clearly seen". I hope this is a fair compromise. Wesley 04:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rastafari

I have included the Rastafarians in this article, and changed the beginning to reflect this. As a post-christian group the Rastas cannot be compared to the Hindu Trimurti, who are in a separate article. the rastas definitely use and have changed the Christian coincepts of the Trinity. --SqueakBox 23:01, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Monophysitism and monothelitism

The following statement:

God has but a single divine nature, and a single will, and is of but one substance.

will be rejected by Chalcedonians, i.e. most Christians. Chalcedonians (i.e. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants) teach that God has a single divine nature shared by all three Persons of the Trinity, but God the Son also has a human nature, which the other two persons do not. Furthermore, the three persons of the Trinity each have a separate will, although these wills are always in accord with each other, and Christ in fact has two wills, a human will and a divine will, always in accord with each other, yielding two natures and four wills in all in Chalcedoniasm. So, I will remove the above statement from "has" up to "and". -- samuel katinsky

Who believes this?

A new, allegedly recent view was added to the article. I assume it's the view of some published author, or of some sort of denomination or movement. Would it be possible to specify who believes this? I'll quote the addition here for reference:

A more recent non-trinitarian view seeks to retain the divinity and diety of Christ, while preserving the most common understanding of what is meant when we claim monotheism. This view is as follows.

The scriptures are clear that the Father is God ("there is one God, the Father...."). And yet, it cannot be denied that there are scriptures that make a similar claim for Jesus (John 1:1--"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."). This non-trinitarian view argues that just as a child is, in a very real and true sense, his/her parent (due to DNA, etc.), at the same time, the child is also not, in a real and true sense, his/her parent.

Likewise, it is argued that Jesus is indeed of the same substance as God, and can be said, rightfully, to be God...and yet to not be God. That is, Jesus is God in substance, but not in person. A huge distinction from all other views, pro and con, regarding the trinity. All other perspectives claim that Jesus is either God in person...or that He is not God at all. This argument, however, seeks to submit that the Father is the person of God, while Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) are of the same substance as God.

This answers the questions raised by scriptures that seem to say that Jesus is God, for it can rightfully be claimed that He is indeed God (for He is of the same substance, is eternal, has the full authority of God, etc.). At the same time, it addresses those scriptures in which it seems clear that Jesus is not God, by realizing that two senses are being used: one addresses the substance and authority of Jesus, and the other addresses the person of God.

No, Chalcedonian (i.e. Catholic & Orthodox) theology says God has one will

Samuel Katinsky has apparently misread or misunderstood the theology of the Council of Chalcedon, accepted as authoritative by all Catholics and Orthodox (and some Protestants). Chalcedonians believe that the three Persons of the Trinity are one in nature, will, power, action, being, and essence. Christ has two natures -- the divine nature he has from all eternity, and the human nature he assumed at the Incarnation --, and each of these natures has a will. (We Orthodox are duothelite, if you will.) But the divine will is simply and numerically one.

I'm editing the main page to correct this point. If there's any disagreement, we should probably hack it out with references? Frjwoolley 19:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Correct Terminology, hypostasis v. ousios v. prosopa

--- This sentence is incorrect:

This one God however exists in three persons, or in the Greek hypostases.

The Greek for person is prosopa

greek->latin->english

hypostasis->substantia->hypostasis (hidden spritual reality)

prosopa->persona->person (persona would be more correct)

---

The problem is that the words changed meaning. "Hypostasis" originally was roughly equivalent to "ousios", being, what is called "substantia" in Latin. (And God is one substance or hypostasis). But eventually it came to be used for what in Latin is "persona". This is why the union of two natures in Christ is called the "hypostatic union" -- a union of two natures in one person.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe correct Trinitarian doctrine is that God is one substance (homoousios) yet three hypostasis.

I wonder whether this page should include something about the historic stages of terminology used in discussing the Trinity. Frjwoolley 23:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I was somewhat mistaken above. I'm pretty sure this is the NPOV: Hypostasis is the same word in Greek, Latin and English, it literally means hidden spiritual reality but is also used as a technical word who's meaning is a great subject of debate; Ousios in Greek is substantia in Latin is substance in English; prosopa in Greek is persona in Latin and is traditionally translated person in English, in modern English persona would be more correct, or at least people (Is "three persons" correct modern English? I suspect it is correct Elizabethan English). These words have not changed meaning, some people might confuse them or claim they have other meanings, but they do not, check any dictionary for reference. To confuse their meanings is just sloppy scholarship. It should be pointed out that the great Trinitarian debates were conducted in Greek and Latin, so English is always a translation, same problem as the translation problems of the Bible. A good English scholar should always keep this in mind.

And yes, the Hypostatic Union is the union of two natures in one persona/person, but that does not mean hypostasis means person. The Three of the Trinity are Three Hypostases and Three Persona yet One God - however it is incorrect and sloppy to conclude that Hypostasis and Persona must therefore be the same thing.

I just read the entry for Hypostatic Union which says it is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It says Paul used hypostasis but not in the sense of person. Seems to me that's one fixed data point when hypostasis does not mean person. It also mentions the use of hypostasis by the Greek philosophers, when it certainly didn't mean person or ousia. That's another data point. Then the article says Augustine felt that hypostasis and ousia were the same thing (presumably he wasn't aware of any difference). That's another datapoint, but it's just Augustine's opinion. But again there is no equating of hypostasis with person. It should be pointed out that most of Christianity, at least Orthodox, was still in Greek, so Latin is a translation and may suffer from translation problems. But I still say it is sloppy to automatically assume that Hypostases and Persona/People/Persons are the same thing. Why make that assumption? How is that neutral?

One more point: the doctrine of the Trinity states that there are three hypostases but all are homo-ousios (of the same substance). Clearly there is a distinction also between hypostasis and ousios even if Augustine didn't see it.

Just to summarize again, I believe this is the NPOV:

Greek->Latin->English

hypostasis->hypostasis->hypostasis (a technical term who's meaning is unclear, hidden spiritual reality, think The Matrix)

ousios->substantia->substance

prosopa->persona->person (in my opinion persona would be a better translation into modern English, at the minimum it should be three people not persons)

---

(If you put four ~s at the end of your entries, you get a signature/timestamp, which makes it easier for people to follow who's saying what.)

You're exactly right — God is one ousios and three hypostases.

Check out the discussion in the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Person" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm, down toward the bottom), and you'll see what I mean about the words shifting. (Even my desk dictionary, the Merriam-Webster 2nd edition, explains the historical change in the meaning of "hypostasis".) One of the big challenges for theologians in the 3rd and 4th centuries was to find ways, in various languages, to state transcendant eternal truths in mutable human words. I don't think there's a POV issue here at all. Orthodox, Catholics, and most Protestants all agree about the doctrine; the problem lies in explaining clearly what it is we agree about! I didn't assume or conclude that "hypostasis" refers to what (in Western languages) we call "persona" or "person"; it's the way the word has been used, consistently, East and West, since late in the 4th century. Frjwoolley 15:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I still disagree that the words shifted. Perhaps the Trinity cannot be expressed in language, if this is the case this should be stated in the article. Perhaps hypostasis was understood to be person in English - why and how did this happen? That should be stated in the article. Because this is clearly not the case in Greek or Latin which are the languages of the Trinity. The last part of the article on "Person" I thought was pretty educational so I'll add it here:

"The use of the word persona to denote them, however, led to controversy between East and West. The precise Greek equivalent was prosopon, likewise used originally of the actor's mask and then of the character he represented, but the meaning of the word had not passed on, as had that of persona, to the general signification of individual. Consequently tres personae, tria prosopa, savoured of Sabellianism to the Greeks. On the other hand their word hypostasis, from hypo-histemi, was taken to correspond to the Latin substantia, from sub-stare. Tres hypostases therefore appeared to conflict with the Nicaean doctrine of unity of substance in the Trinity. This difference was a main cause of the Antiochene schism of the fourth century (see MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH). Eventually in the West, it was recognized that the true equivalent of hypostasis was not substantia but subsistentia, and in the East that to understand prosopon in the sense of the Latin persona precluded the possibility of a Sabellian interpretation. By the First Council of Constantinople, therefore, it was recognized that the words hypostasis, prosopon, and persona were equally applicable to the three Divine realities."

It says the true equivalent in Latin of the Greek hypostasis is subsistentia which according to Lewis and Short means substance or reality, subsisto the verb means to take a stand. How did this come to mean person in English as you claim? Doesn't it seem to be a mistaken translation? I should also note that Lewis and Short have an entry for hypostasis (a direct import from Greek as are many Latin words) and it says substance, personality, hypostasy and sites Codex Just. 1.1.6 and Hier. Ep. ad Damas 15.

How do you claim that hypostasis means person in English? I find that it means any of the persons of the Trinity, but that's not the same as saying it means person. Seems to me there is a fundamental misunderstanding. In Greek the Trinity is three Hypostases, In Latin the Trinity is three Personas. Now, in English one could say the Trinity is three persons which is more or less a translation of the Latin (assuming you treat persons as a technical word). But it incorrect to conclude that therefore hypostasis must mean person. That's a fallacy of translation. You can't take language one and translate to language two and then translate to language three and then assume there is one to one correspondence between language one and three because you have gone throught the intermediary of language two. Seems to me that is the error here. I stand by my claim that Greek hypostasis does not correspond to English persons. 63.201.25.121 19:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Matthew 16:13-17 (and opening sentence)

I adjusted the opening sentence, which while not inaccurate of itself, comes across as maybe a little declarative. I tried to find something that seems more neutral and hope others agree.

You mention the strongest objection to the edit, Chris. You say that what was there was "not inaccurate", whereas I say that what you put in its place is less accurate. The doctrine of the Trinity is not that the Trinity is a doctrine of God, but that the Trinity is God.

Similarly, the guessy language concerning what the persons are called "usually called", as though the language were arbitrary, is not the doctrine. The article goes on to explain, as it should, that there are some who believe that adjustments need to be made according to the times; but these people are objecting to the established version of the doctrine, and hope replace the old version with what they argue is a better, although less biblical and less traditional yet still more strictly true, more modern and fairer, gender-inclusive version.

Finally, I changed the "most denominations" language. Even if there were more anti-trinitarian denominations than trinitarian denominations (which there are not), the issue of comparison is not the number of denominations, but the standing of this doctrine among the churches which represent most Christians (whatever a Christian is, in that sentence). Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also excised the passage below. It seems to have been inserted as another pro-trin argument as if it alone resolved the question, but it comes across as just more POV, and not very effective either, since being the son of God does not translate to being God. I could just as easily post anti-trin-tending quotes as independent sections, but it would be equally pointless.

     When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, 
     He asked His disciples, saying, 'Who do men say that I,  
     the Son of Man, am?' So they said, 
     'Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah; 
     and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' 
     'He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' 
      Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, 
      the Son of the living God. Jesus answered and said 
      to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and 
      blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in  
      heaven. Matthew 16:13-17 (cf. Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:18-21,
      John 6:68-69

Chris Rodgers 02:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Christian consensus on the Trinity

All Orthodox, Roman (and all other) Catholics, the Copts, almost all Protestants, and most of the other groups that derive one way or another from Protestantism — amounting in total to something like 98 or 99% of all self-identified "Christians" — believe in the Trinity, and formulate their beliefs in almost identical language. This amounts to an extraordinary degree of consensus for such a widely varying group as Christian denominations.

It is certainly true that there are groups — Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and various others — who call themselves "Christian" and yet don't believe in the Trinity. All these groups add up to something possibly approaching 2% of all self-identified "Christians"; and yet, to look at this page, and some of the editing that's been done on it recently, you'd think that belief in the Trinity was something on which Christianity was broadly divided, instead of being (as it is) one of the very few theological positions on which Christianity shows real across-the-spectrum consensus.

I think we should mention in the first paragraph of this article that there are non-Trinitarian Christians, but that they're a very small minority, and that this page is an attempt to present what the doctrine of the Trinity is, rather than to 1) defend the doctrine from attacks, or 2) catalogue all the things various non-Trinitarians may or may not believe. Then any information about "dissenting" theologies should be put into the "Dissent from the Doctrine" section, rather than scattered through the main body of the article.

Make sense? Frjwoolley 15:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"Non-trinitarian" Christians aren't even recognized as Christians. Trinity is one of the core values of the religion. I included a note to that effect but there certainly should be no division in the article. I encourage you to add your proposal to the intro. We don't want to introduce with ambiguity.--Will2k 16:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Don't the Unitarians accept non-Trinitarians? They are not Christians? How about Messianic-Jews? They are not Christians?

The article Christianity even says that trinity is a core value of the religion. So I guess they are not.--Will2k 19:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Strange, I thought the only requirement of being a Christian was to profess belief in Jesus, apparently there is more involved?

The edits that most Christians believe you're not Christian if you disbelieve in the trinitarian description are incorrect. That's a minority, chiefly fundamentalist perspective created by the attempt to dismiss anyone with doctrinal differences (rather than differencesof praxis/practice) a cult because it makes them sound more different and therefore more disparageable. My Episcopalian, Methodist, and other friends have no such definitional problems. Interpretational differences separate every single denomination from every other (theoretically making them all potential "cults", but the Biblical standard is indeed belief in the teaching of Jesus alone. Those need correcting. Chris Rodgers 06:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The situation is slightly more complex. For most organisations that call themselves Christian, belief in the Trinity is a fundamental one. If comes fundamentally from believing that Jesus is God. There are a number of organisations that don't believe in the Trinity but call themselves Christian. Unitarians, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are some examples. It's true that most Trinitarian Christians don't accept non-Trinitarians as true Christians; it's also true that most non-Trinitarians don't accept Trinitarians as Christians. After all it's a pretty fundamental difference of opinion, whether this guy is God or not.

When you say "the only requirement of being a Christian was to profess belief in Jesus", that's true at some level. But belief in him as what? Is it necessary only to believe he existed? Or that he said some nice things, which I might put into practice one day? I might believe that Mohammed existed, but that doesn't make me a Muslim. DJ Clayworth 21:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wasn't able to find a figure for number of Unitarians worldwide, but it looks as though non-Trinitarians are about 2% of the number of Christians - give or take a percent. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

John 3:16? Isn't that the verse you see protesters always showing the camera?

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Christianity

---

I think what we're struggling with here is that the word "Christian" doesn't have a single "correct" meaning, but rather can be used in various ways that are useful in various contexts. For instance, we've all heard people use "Christian" to mean "nice" or "moral", without reference to actual religious practice. Or we could define a "Christian" religion as one that gives some kind of central position to Christ — in which case Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Arians would all be counted "Christian". We could define it as any group that calls itself "Christian" — which might be a fairly good NPOV approach, and I don't see how to improve on it for purposes of the encyclopedia, again including Unity, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc. In a more spiritual context, though, a far more useful definition is one that involves doctrine, and in this sense the divinity of Jesus is one of those central doctrines that (in my mind and in the estimation, I think, of most Christians) defines Christianity.

We aren't going to come up with any useful insights if all we're doing is struggling over the use of a word. There are times when we want to use "Christian" in the sociological sense, and JWs and Mormons should be included; there are other times when we're discussing issues where we need a word to include Catholics, Orthodox, and (most) Protestants, and "Christian" seems like a good word to use there, too. Frjwoolley 15:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me the NPOV would be to use Christian in the larger sense of those who believe in Jesus ala John 3:16. This greater group can be further divided, for example Non-Trinitarian and Trinitarian Christians. But it is not neutral for either of these subgroups to consider themselves alone to be the only valid group of Christians.