बाइबिल संदेश: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY

I. SCRIPTURAL REFLECTION ON THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY

1.1 What does it mean that God is a Trinity?
1.2 Explicit Revelation of Triune God

1.2.1 Godhead

1.2.2 Plurality in the Oneness of God

1.2.3 Trinitarian Statements in the New Testament

1.2.4 Old and New Testament Teach the Monotheism and that Jesus is Divine

1.2.4.1 Monotheism

1.2.4.2 Why Jesus should be Divine?

1.2.4.3 Unity with the Father

1.2.5 Jesus and the Father are Different Persons

1.2.5.1 The Father and the Son

1.1.6 The Holy Spirit is Both Divine and has Personal Attributes

1.2.6.1 The Holy Spirit Is Spoken of as God

1.2.6.2 The Holy Spirit Performs Divine Functions

1.2.6.3 Personhood of the Holy Spirit

1.2.6.4 Functions of the Personhood

II. MAJOR VIEWS ON THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY

2.1 Dynamic Monarchianism

2.1.1 Perception of God’s essence (Oneness Unity)

2.1.2 Perception of God’s Subsistence (Threeness-diversity)

2.2 Modalistic Monachainism

2.2.1 Perception of God’s essence (Oneness Unity)

2.2.2 Perception of God’s Subsistence (Threeness-diversity)

2.3 Subordinationism

2.4 Economic Trinitarianism

2.4.1 Perception of God’s Essence (oneness unity)

. 2.4.2 Perception of God’s Subsistence (threeness diversity)

2.5 Orthodox Trinitarianism

2.5.1 Perception of God’s Essence (oneness unity)

2.5.2 Perception of God’s Subsistence (threeness diversity)

2.6 Partialism

III. SCHOLARS AND THEIR APPROACHES TO THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY

3.1 Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

3.2 Karl Barth (1886–1968)

3.3 Karl Rahner (1904–84)

3.4 John Macquarrie

3.5 Robert Jenson

3.6 F. D. E. Schleiermacher

3.7 Jürgen Moltmann

3.8 C S Lewis’ Three Dimensions

3.9 Peter Kreeft: Trinity and love

3.10 Domenic Marbaniang

3.10.1 Essential Elements of Trinity

3.10.2 The Importance of Doctrine of Trinity

3.10.3 Natural Illustrations 1x1x1=1 (Nathan Wood)

3.11 William Lane Craig Formulation

CONCLUSION

Dr. Domenic Marbaniang Formulation

Athanasian Creed: Identity and Relative Identity

Inwagen and Geach’s Proposal

Michael Rea’s Supplement

INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of the Trinity is a foundational doctrine of Christian faith. It is crucial for properly understanding what God is like, how He relates to us, and how we should relate to Him. But it also raises many difficult questions. How can God be both one and three? Is the Trinity a contradiction? From the Second Century to our present age, many people have found the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity hard to understand. The doctrine of the Trinity recognizes that God is one God, co-existing in three distinct Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In this course paper I will analyze some major formulations developed throughout 20 centuries in the Christian history in order to hold most coherent and relevant view in this modern time. The aim of this paper is not only to get the right perspective and the view in regard of Doctrine of Trinity, but also find out that what are false views and why they are so called false. Doing so will help us lot to abide in the sound doctrine of the Scriptures. This analytical study has been divided in to three chapters. Starting right from primary question that why Christians believe in Trinity why providing the answer that Doctrine of Trinity is not kind of man made doctrine but Scripture reveals triune God, therefore, Christians belief in Trinity. Therefore, in the first chapter I have analyzed that really Scriptures talk about Trinity or not, and then in the seconds and third chapters you can see people’s contributions and views on the doctrine of Trinity, and then finally concluded affirming with more reasonable defense of the Doctrine of Trinity.

I. SCRIPTURAL REFLECTION ON THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY

1.1 What does it mean that God is a Trinity?
The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons- the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.

I think, that, it is necessary for every student of the Bible that primarily he needs to be master himself in the light and reflections of the Bible upon any doctrinal contribution that has been consistent or being consisting in his own Fideistic conception rather than giving preference for any secondary resource available. Therefore, before we examine the Doctrine of Trinity and its historical and theoretical assessment in the history of Christianity, let’s look at the Bible that how it throws the light on an ever controversial topic the Doctrine of Trinity since centuries.

1.2 Explicit Revelation of Triune God

Under the heading, I am going to show that the doctrine of Trinity based on the revelation that given in the Bible. This Biblical revelation regarding the Trinity is not a contributed view of any scholar or theologian or philosopher or result of Nicene council in 325 AD as may believe, but it is purely inspired revelation by the Spirit of God to the original recipients which they received without any rational contradiction. Therefore, we find no contradiction that how God can be one and three at the same time. Therefore, instead of raising logical contradiction on the respective topic they believed themselves it in its face value and taught it to their followers. The revelation of God is not underestimated up to the recipients; however, God chose them to reveal Himself to everyone through them, so every single ordinary man also may comprehend the truth of the doctrine. Therefore, for me; the comprehension of doctrine of trinity start from a common or ordinary person to learned person rather than learned to common or ordinary person; the reason is explicit that every man on the face of the earth can be a ordinary person but every ordinary person cannot be learned man. Therefore, God starts revealing himself to ordinary people. For instance, He called unschooled people and fishermen to be carrier of His revelation and the truth which He is going to give them.

As following there are certain reasons which can be seen in the Bible that appeal to us to believe in the doctrine of Trinity:

1.2.1 Godhead

In our material existence, the concept that God is One God, yet exists as three distinct persons, is foreign to us. However, the doctrine of the Godhead (Trinity) is without questions revealed in God's word. The Biblical term "Godhead" (theiotes) is used three times in Scripture, Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9. The word “Trinity," which is the theological word Christians use to refer to the Godhead, is not found in Scripture. (i) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device (Acts 17:29).[1] (ii) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).[2] (iii) For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9).[3]

The doctrine states that the Godhead, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, consists of three distinct Persons, yet these three are one God. There are many arguments espoused by those that deny the Trinity, but the most prevalent is: How can God be One God and at the same time be three Persons?

The problem with that question is that it is based in ignorance of what God has said about Himself. The Bible, the Word of God, plainly states the plurality of God and that God is One God. To accept His Word means to believe what God has revealed. The truth of the Trinity is a revealed truth that established in the credibility of God Himself. In Matthew 28:19-20; Jesus gave His disciples the Great Commission, stating that they were to teach and baptize in the names of the Godhead, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.[4] Further 1 John 5:7 states, for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (KJV).[5] The fact God did not inspire the writers of Scripture to use the modern word "Trinity" does imply that it is not a Biblical truth. However, there are many words and phrases that Christians use to express Biblical doctrines that are not found in the Bible. One is the word "rapture." This word also is not found in Scripture, but the phrase “shall be caught up” (harpagēsometha) is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and means to “catch away” or in Latin rapiēmur meaning to be snatched away. In fact, the word "Bible" is also not found in the Scriptures. Would we dismiss the existence of the Bible because the word is not found in Scripture?

1.2.2 Plurality in the Oneness of God

Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. The Bible, in this verse, emphatically states there is only one God. Literally, the verse says, "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our Elohim[6] is a united Jehovah." The Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God and this statement can only be understood in that God is telling us He is One God. Compare with 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 1:21 yet, this do not mean that within the Godhead there is not a plurality. Scripturally, plurality means, that God is One God existing in three distinct Persons.

The Hebrew word for one is Echad and "stresses unity while recognizing diversity with that oneness."[7] This same word is used in Gen. 2:24, therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one (Echad) flesh. Therefore, God says that two individuals, Adam and Eve, were one flesh. Ex. 24:3 states… all the people answered with one (Echad) voice, and said, all the words which the LORD hath said will we do." Note that all the people, which were a great multitude, replied with one voice. There are many other instances where the word is used to show the oneness of many individuals. In other words, the Hebrew word Echad allows for plurality within oneness, allowing God, who is emphatically described as one God, to be three Persons who are One God.

There is another Hebrew word that means "one" which is "Yahad." This word is always singular and can only mean one and so its use allows no plurality. God could have used this word in Deut. 6:4, but chose Echad instead, which allows the concept of God being One God who is in essence is three individual Persons. The Old Testament begins by teaching that God is one in three Persons. In

Gen. 1:1, the Hebrew name for God is Elohim which is used more than two thousand times in the plural form in the Bible.[8] Further, the name Elohim occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language. This is a plural noun, but the verb is singular, which is not a normal use of grammar. Normally a plural noun would have a plural verb. But, if you wanted to teach that God is one and also a plurality, using the unique grammatical construction of using of a plural noun with a singular verb would be used. Therefore, this passage teaches that there is one God who exists in a plurality.

1.2.3 Trinitarian Statements in the New Testament

· Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.... (Mt. 28:19).

· May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Cor. 13:14).

· Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood....(1 Pet. 1:2).

1.2.4 Old and New Testament Teach the Monotheism and that Jesus is Divine

1.2.4.1 Monotheism

Monotheism is the belief, pioneered by Judaism and affirmed by Christianity, that there is but one God. We can see it often in the Old and New Testaments (for example: Mark 12:29; Deut. 6:4; Acts 17:2231; 1 Cor. 8:46).

1.2.4.2 Why Jesus should be Divine?

First reason: Numerous verses in the Bible explicitly call Jesus God or ascribe Deity to Him: Isa 7:14; 9:6; Jer. 23:5; Matt 1:22f; John l:l; 5:18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 8:9; 9:5; Phil 2:6f; Col 2:9; 1Tim 3:16; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Peter 1:1.

Second reason: Jesus acted as possessing the attributes of Deity: (i) He forgave sin which only God can do Mk. 2:512; Lk. 7:4750. (ii) He placed His own words on par with the words of God Mt. 5:27f; 31f. (iii) He spoke as being omniscient Mt. 17:27; Mk. 2:8; Lk. 9:46f; 11:17; Jn. 1:48; 4:1618. (iv) He foretold the future Mt. 16:21; 24:25; 26:2125; 3125; Jn. 21:18f. (v) Jesus controlled the weather which is the prerogative of God Mk. 4:3941, cp Job 38:2538. (vi) He even promised direction and comfort to His followers based on His omnipresence (Mt. 18:20; 28:20 cp. Heb 13:5; Jn. 1:48; 3:13.

Third reason: Attributes of God are ascribed to Jesus by others: Jesus is declared to be: (i) Omniscient Jn. 2:2325; 16:30; 21:17. (ii) Omnipresent Eph 1:23; 4:10. (iii) Omnipotent Phil 3:21. (iv) Eternally preexistent (Isa 9:6; Micah 5:2; Jn. 1:1; Col 1:17. (v) Immutable (not able to change Heb. 1:812; 13:8).

Fourth reason: Acts of God are attributed to Jesus: (i) Jesus is said to be the Agent of creation Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb 1:2; Yet, the LORD declares that He creates by Himself Isa. 44:24. (ii) The LORD God breathed the breath of life into humans Gen 2:7. But Peter proclaims Jesus to be the Prince (or Originator) of life Acts 3:14; Jn. 1:4. (iii) Jesus is also the sustainer of the universe Col. 1:17; Heb 1:3. (iv) In the Old Testament, the LORD is the only One who can save people from their sins Isa 43:25; 44:21; 63:16). As the New Testament opens, an angel declares to Joseph, ". . . you hall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" Mt. 1:21; Eph 1:7. (v) Furthermore, Peter quotes the prophet Joel as saying, ". . . whoever calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved" Acts 2:21. Later, Peter claims that only the name of Jesus can save Acts 4:12.

Fifth reason: Jesus is treated like He is God: (i) He is worshipped by humans and angels Mt. 14:33; 28:9; Jn. 9:38; Heb. 1:6; Rev 5:814; cf. Acts 12:2023; Rev 19:10. (ii) He receives the kind of "service" that is only allowed to God Rev. 22:3f Greek - latreuo; cf. Mt. 4:10. (iii) People even pray to Jesus Acts 7:59f; 2Cor 12:8; 1Jn. 5:1315.

Sixth reason: The Old Testament theophanies (appearances of God) are actually pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. This fact can be established because Jesus tells us, "Not that anyone has seen the Father . . ." Jn. 6:46. A comparison of Jn. 12:41 with Isa 6:15 will confirm it was the Son, not the Father, who appeared to Isaiah. Yet, Isaiah specifically exclaims, ". . . my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts" Isa 6:5. We can see another example also in Gen. 18 and in Ex. 33:11, 20.

Seventh reason: The Angel of the LORD is an interesting Person in the Old Testament. Sometimes the Angel of the LORD and the LORD are presented as being two distinct Persons 2Sam. 24:16f; 1Chron 21:15f, 27. More often, though, the names seem to belong to the same Person Ex. 3:2,4; 13:21; 14:19; Judges 6:1215; 13:21f.

Eighth reason: A similar situation is seems in the Revelation in the relationship of God and the Lamb. God sits on the throne; but, the Lamb "is in the midst of the throne" Rev. 7:10, 17. Later, the throne is said to belong to Both God and the Lamb Rev. 22:1, 3. Further, there is no temple in the New Jerusalem ". . . for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple" Rev. 21:22 cp. 1Kg. 8:1013. In addition, the glory of God and of the Lamb illumines the city Rev. 21:23; Isa 60:19f.

Ninth reason: both God and Jesus; Hold Titles of Deity yet, these titles are such that only One can possess them: (i) "The Alpha and the Omega; the First and the Last" Isa. 44:5; Rev. 1:8, 11, 17f; 2:8; 21:66; 22:1217. (ii) "The King of kings and the Lord of lords" 1Tim. 6:16; Rev. 17:14; 19:16. (iii) Jesus is said to be the "Rock" who sustained the Israelites during their wilderness wanderings. However, Israel at the time believed the LORD their God was their "Rock" 1Cor. 10:4; Deut. 32:3f; 8:25. (iv) In the Pastoral Epistles, Paul juxtaposes God and Jesus when referring to "our Savior" 1Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 2Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:3f; 2:10, 13f; 3:4, 6. But the LORD says, "…there is no savior besides Me" Hos. 13:4 see also Isa 43:11.

Tenth reason: Passages in the Old Testament that refer to the LORD are quoted or alluded to in the New Testament in reference to Jesus. Compare the following sets of verses: (i) Deut. 10:14; Acts 10:36. (ii) Ps 34:8; 1Pet. 2:3. (iii) Ps. 102:25; Heb. 1:10. (iv) Isa. 26:19; 60:1; Eph. 5:14. (v) Isa. 43:10; Acts 1:8. (vi) Isa. 45:23; Phil. 2:10. (vii) Jer. 9:24; 2Cor. 10:17; Phil. 3:3. (viii) Jer. 17:10; Rev. 2:23 (ix) Joel 2:32; Rom. 10:13. (x) Zech. 11:12f; Matt 26: 14f. (xi) Zech 12:10; John 19:37. (xii) Mal. 3:1; Mark 1:2.

Eleventh reason: God uses the plural, first person pronouns, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" Gen. 1:26. From the earliest times, the Church has interpreted this phrase as the Father speaks to the Son. The Lord even freely moves from the singular to the plural "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Isa. 6:8.

Twelfth reason: And finally, three verses in the Old Testament indicate there are two Persons with the name "the LORD" Gen. 19:24; Zech. 2:10f; 3:1 and one passage hints, there are two Persons called "God" Ps. 45:7; Heb. 1:8.

1.2.4.3 Unity with the Father

· I and the Father are one. Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God (John 10:30:33).

· I tell you the truth, Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!' At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds (John 8:5859).

· But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven (Mt. 16:1517).

· The high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One? 'I am,' said Jesus. 'and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk.14:6162).

1.2.5 Jesus and the Father are Different Persons

The New Testament indicates many times and in many ways that Jesus and the Father are different and distinct persons.

1.2.5.1 The Father and the Son

· For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (Jn.3:16).

· All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (Mt.11:27).

· I tell you the truth; the Son can do nothing by himself; He can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.... He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him (Jn.5:19, 23).

· Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.... And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began (Jn. 17:1, 5).

1.1.6 The Holy Spirit is Both Divine and has Personal Attributes

1.2.6.1 The Holy Spirit Is Spoken of as God

Then Peter said, 'Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God (Acts 5:3-4).

1.2.6.2 The Holy Spirit Performs Divine Functions

The Holy Spirit also performs divine functions, such as judging (Jn. 16:811), pouring out the love of God (Rom. 5:5), giving joy (Rom.14:17), hope (Romans 8:1725), peace (Rom. 8:6), regeneration (Jn. 3:5), and faith (2 Cor. 12:9). The Holy Spirit can also be blasphemed (Mk. 3:29 and Lk. 12:10), which in the New Testament is usually an act of verbally injuring someone divine.

1.2.6.3 Personhood of the Holy Spirit

In many languages, including Greek, words have masculine, feminine, or neuter genders or inflections that have no real counterpart in English. While the Spirit is often referred to by a neuter Greek pronoun, since the pneuma has a neuter gender in Greek (such as John 14:17, 26; 15:26), on several occasions the masculine pronoun is used, apparently to emphasize the Spirit's personhood. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom (neuter pronoun) the Father will send in my name, he (masculine pronoun) will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (Jn. 14:26, RSV). We see similar language in Jn. 15:26 and especially Jn. 16:13: When the Spirit of truth comes, he (masculine pronoun) will guide you into all truth.

1.2.6.4 Functions of the Personhood

There is the solid Biblical evidence that points to the Holy Spirit as a distinct person in his own right and performs functions we attribute to personhood. The Holy Spirit appoints missionaries (Acts 13:2; 20:28). He leads and directs them in their ministry (Acts 8:29; 10:1920; 16:67; 1 Cor. 2:13). He speaks through the prophets (Acts 1:16; 1 Pet. 1:1112; 2 Pet. 1:21). He corrects (Jn. 16:8). He comforts (Acts 9:31), helps us in our infirmities (Rom. 8:26), teaches (Jn. 14:26; 1 Cor. 12:3), guides (Jn. 16:13), sanctifies (Rom.15:16; 1 Cor. 6:11), testifies of Christ (Jn. 15:26), glorifies Christ (Jn. 16:14), has a power of his own (Rom. 15:13), searches all things (Rom. 11:3334; 1 Cor. 2:1011), works according to his own will (1 Cor. 12:11), dwells with saints (Jn. 14:17), can be grieved (Eph. 4:30), can be resisted (Acts 7:51), and can be tempted (Acts 5:9).

II. MAJOR VIEWS ON THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY

The great challenge that we ever face in our belief is; in our time while we study the doctrine of Trinity we encounter various views regarding the doctrine Trinity originated in different times of the Christian history. These views are almost contrary to each other, because experts’ result on the reading of the doctrine of Trinity shows that these views fail to provide an adequate sufficiency on the explanation of the doctrine of Trinity. Therefore, among the tensions and competitionality between numerous interpretations of the doctrine of Trinity; the challenge is so simple, just like a two sides of the coin; first: challenge to recognize the false view which and how, second: realize the true one and maintaining that. As following, I have mentioned the major views on the doctrine of Trinity from the Chart of Christian Theology and Doctrines by H. Wayne House.[9] One thing need to notice is, none of the view mentioned below is stand firmly in the scripture with sense that I understand the scripture or from my point of view.

2.1 Dynamic Monarchianism

This view developed by Theodotus and followed by Paul of Samosata, Artemon, Socinius, and Modern Unitarians.

2.1.1 Perception of God’s essence (Oneness Unity)

The unity of God denotes both oneness of nature and oneness of person. The Son and the Holy Spirit therefore are consubstantial with the Father’s divine essence only as impersonal attributes. The divine dunamis came upon the man Jesus, but he was not God in the strict sense of the word.

2.1.2 Perception of God’s Subsistence (Threeness-diversity)

The notion of a subsistence God is a palpable impossibility, since his perfect unity is perfectly indivisible. The diversity of God is apparent and not real, since the Christ event and work of the Holy Spirit attest only to a dynamic operation within God, not to a hypostatic union.

· Father: is unique and originator of the universe. He is eternal, self-existent, and without beginning or end.

· Son: is a virtuous (but finite) man in whose life God was dynamically presents in a unique way; Christ definitely was not deity though his humanity was deified.

· Holy Spirit: is an impersonal attribute of Godhead. No deity/ or eternality as ascribed to the Holy Spirit.

Criticism: Elevates reason above he witness of Biblical revelation concerning the Trinity. Categorically denies the Holy Spirit, thereby undermining the theological doctrine of salvation.

2.2 Modalistic Monachainism

Modalistic Monachainism view was Praxeas and followed by Noaetus, Sabellius, Swedenborg, Schleiermacher, and Moden Unitarians (Jesus Only).

.2.2.1 Perception of God’s essence (Oneness Unity)

The unity of God is ultra-simplex. He is qualitatively characterized in his essence by one nature and by one person. This essence may be designated interchangeably as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are different names for but identical with the unified, simplex God. The three names modes by which God reveals Himself.

2.2.2 Perception of God’s Subsistence (Threeness-diversity)

The concept of a subsistent God is erroneous and confounds the real issue of the phenomenon of God’s modalistic manifestation of himself. The paradox of a subsisting “three in oneness” is refuted by recognizing that God is not three persons but one person with three different names and corresponding roles following one another like parts of a drama.

· Father: is fully God and fully eternal as the primal mode or manifestation of the only unique and unitary God.

· Son: is full deity/ eternality ascribed only in the sense of his being another mode of the one God and identical with his essence. He is the same manifested in temporal sequence specific to a role (incarnation).

· Holy Spirit: is eternal God only as the title designates the phase in which the one God, in temporal sequence, manifested himself pursuant to the role of regeneration and sanctification. Analogical reference: One-person acting three different roles in the same drama. For instance; water, ice, and vapor are three states: solid, liquid, and gas. Although the water changes forms it is still H2O. Just as water changes forms so too is the trinity.

Criticism: Depersonalized the Godhead. Compensate for its Trinitarian deficiencies, this view propounds ideas that are clearly heretical (e.g., Partipassianism). Its concept of successive manifestation of the Godhead cannot account for such simultaneous appearances of the three persons as at Christ’s baptism. As for the analogy; the problem with this analogy is that no one molecule of H2O can actually exist as solid, liquid, and gas at the same time. As a result, the water molecule must change forms. A single molecule cannot simultaneously exist in three different states.

2.3 Subordinationism

Subordinationism view developed by Arius (256-336) and Modern Jehovah’s Witnesses and several lesser-known cults.

2.3.1 Perception of God’s Essence (oneness unity)

The inherent oneness of God’s nature is properly identifiable with Father only. The Son and the Holy Spirit are discrete entities who do not share the divine nature.

2.3.2 Perception of God’s Subsistence (threeness diversity)

The unipersonal essence of God precludes the concept of divine subsistence with Godhead. “Threeness in oneness” is self-contradictory and violates the Biblical principles of a monotheistic God.

· Father: The only one, unbegotten God who is eternal and without beginning.

· Son: is a created being and therefore not eternal. Though he is to be venerates, he is not the divine essence.

· Holy Spirit: is a non-personal, non-eternal emanation of the Father. He is viewed as an influence, an expression of God. Deity is not ascribed to Him.

Analogical referent: mind-Idea-action

Criticism: it is at variance with abundant scriptural testimony respecting the deity of both Christ and the Holy Spirit. Its hierarchical concept likewise asserts three essential separate persons with regard to the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit. This result in a totally confused the soteriology.

2.4 Economic Trinitarianism

This view developed by Hyppolytus Tertullian and followed by various new economic Trinitarians.

2.4.1 Perception of God’s Essence (oneness unity)

The Godhead is characterized by unity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three manifestation of one identical, indivisible substance. The perfect unity and consubstantiality are especially comprehended in such manifest Triadic deeds as creation and redemption.

2.4.2 Perception of God’s Subsistence (threeness diversity)

Substance within the Godhead is articulated by means of such themes of such terms “distinction” and “distribution,” dispelling effectively the notion of separateness or division.

· The equal deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clearly elucidated in observation of the simultaneous revelation/operation features of the Godhead. The co-eternality at times, does not intelligibility surface in this ambiguous view, but it seems to be a logical implication.

Analogical referents are as following; a source and its river, unity between a root and its shoot, and the sun and its light.

Criticism: is more tentative and ambiguous in its treatment of the relational aspects of the Trinity.

2.5 Orthodox Trinitarianism

This view coined up by Athanasius and later followed by Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martine Luther, John Calvin, and contemporary orthodox Christianity.

2.5.1 Perception of God’s Essence (oneness unity)

God’s being is perfectly unified and simplex: of one essence, (homoousia). This essence of deity held in common by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons are consubstantial, co-inherent (perichoreses), co-equal, and co-eternal.

2.5.2 Perception of God’s Subsistence (threeness diversity)

The divine substance is said to occur simultaneously in three modes of being or hypostases. As such, the Godhead exists “undivided in divided persons.” This view contemplates an identical in nature and co-operation in function without denial of the distinctions of person in the Godhead.

In its final distillation, this view unhesitatingly sets forth Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as co-equal and co-eternal in the Godhead with regard of to both the divine essence and function.

Analogical referent: All analogies fail to express orthodox Trinitarianism adequately.

Criticism: the only shortcoming has to do with the limitations inherent in human language and thought itself the impossibility of totally describing the ineffable mystery of “three in oneness”

2.6 Partialism

There is another view known as Partialism, probably developed by St. Patrick; teaches that God is three parts making one whole. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are partially divine of whole not fully and individual divine.

Criticism: this view limits the divinity of each person of the Godhead and finally, enhances the fourth kind of God with composition of these three known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, the view is unsound.

In addition, the Unitarianism, Sabellianism, and Tritheism explicitly considered as false views of the Doctrine of Trinity. For instance, look at the images.

III. SCHOLARS AND THEIR APPROACHES TO THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY

3.1 Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

Augustine takes up many elements of the emerging consensus on the Trinity, for example, in his vigorous rejection of any form of subordinationism (that is, treating the Son and the Spirit as inferior to the Father within the Godhead). Augustine insists that the action of the entire Trinity is to be discerned behind the actions of each of its persons. Thus, humanity is not merely created in the image of God; it is created in the image of the Trinity.[10] An important distinction is drawn between the eternal Godhead of the Son and the Spirit, and their place in the economy of salvation. Although the Son and the Spirit may appear to be posterior to the Father, this judgment only applies to their role within the process of salvation. Although the Son and the Spirit may appear to be subordinate to the Father in history, in eternity all are coequal. This is an important anticipation of the later distinction between the essential Trinity, grounded in God’s eternal nature, and the economic Trinity, grounded in God’s self-revelation within history. Perhaps the most distinctive element of Augustine’s approach to the Trinity concerns his understanding of the person and place of the Holy Spirit; we have already considered specific aspects of this during our discussion of the filioque controversy. However, Augustine’s conception of the Spirit as the love that unites the Father and the Son demands attention at this early stage. Having identified the Son with “wisdom” (sapientia), Augustine proceeds to identify the Spirit with “love” (caritas). He concedes that he has no explicit biblical grounds for this identification; nevertheless, he regards it as a reasonable inference from the biblical material. The Spirit “makes us dwell in God, and God in us.” This explicit identification of the Spirit as the basis of union between God and believers is important, as it points to Augustine’s idea of the Spirit as the giver of community. The Spirit is the divine gift which binds us to God. There is therefore, Augustine argues, a corresponding relation within the Trinity itself. The gift must reflect the nature of the giver. God already exists in the kind of relation to which he wishes to bring us. And just as the Spirit is the bond of union between God and the believer, so the Spirit exercises a comparable role within the Trinity, binding the persons together. “The Holy Spirit makes us dwell in God, and God in us. But that is the effect of love. So the Holy Spirit is God who is love.”[11] This argument is supplemented by a general analysis of the importance of love within the Christian life. Augustine, basing his ideas loosely on 1 Corinthians 13: 13 (“These three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love”), argues along the following lines: 1 God’s greatest gift is love. 2 God’s greatest gift is the Holy Spirit. 3 Therefore the Holy Spirit is love. This style of analysis has been criticized for its obvious weaknesses, not least in leading to a curiously depersonalized notion of the Spirit. The Spirit appears as a sort of glue, binding Father and Son together, and binding both to believers. The idea of “being bound to God” is a central feature of Augustine’s spirituality, and it is perhaps inevitable that this concern will appear prominently in his discussion of the Trinity. One of the most distinctive features of Augustine’s approach to the Trinity is his development of “psychological analogies.” The reasoning which lies behind the appeal to the human mind in this respect can be summarized as follows. It is not unreasonable to expect that, in creating the world, God has left a characteristic imprint upon that creation. But where is that imprint (vestigium) to be found? It is reasonable to expect that God would plant this distinctive imprint upon the height of his creation. Now the Genesis creation accounts allow us to conclude that humanity is the height of God’s creation. Therefore, Augustine argues, we should look to humanity in our search for the image of God. However, Augustine then takes a step which some of his critics feel to have been unnecessary and unfortunate. On the basis of his neo-Platonic worldview, Augustine argues that the human mind is to be regarded as the apex of humanity. It is therefore to the individual human mind that the theologian should turn, in looking for “traces of the Trinity” (vestigia Trinitatis) in creation. The radical individualism of this approach, coupled with its obvious intellectualism, means that he chooses to find the Trinity in the inner mental world of individuals, rather than – for example – in personal relationships (an approach favored by medieval writers, such as Richard of St. Victor). Furthermore, a first reading of On the Trinity suggests that Augustine seems to regard the inner workings of the human mind as telling us as much about God as about the economy of salvation. Although Augustine stresses the limited value of such analogies, he himself appears to make more use of them than this critical appraisal would warrant. Augustine discerns a triadic structure to human thought and argues that this structure of thought is grounded in the being of God. He himself argues that the most important such triad is that of mind, knowledge, and love, although the related triad of memory, understanding, and will is also given considerable prominence. The human mind is an image – inadequate, to be sure, but still an image – of God himself. So just as there are three such faculties in the human mind, which are not ultimately totally separate and independent entities, so there can be three “persons” in God. There are some obvious difficulties here, possibly even some fatal weaknesses.In the end, however, it must be pointed out that Augustine’s appeal to such “psychological analogies” is actually illustrative, rather than constitutive. They are intended to be visual aids (although visual aids that are grounded in the doctrine of creation) to insights that may be obtained from Scripture and from reflection on the economy of salvation. Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity is not ultimately grounded in his analysis of the human mind, but in his reading of Scripture, especially of the fourth gospel. Augustine’s presentation of the Trinity exercised a major influence over later generations, especially during the Middle Ages. Thomas Aquinas’s Treatise on the Trinity largely represents an elegant restatement of Augustine’s ideas, rather than a subtle modification and correction of their deficiencies. Similarly, in the Institutes, Calvin is content to offer an interpretation of Scripture which is largely a direct repetition of Augustine’s approach to the Trinity, indicating a settled consensus within the western tradition at this point. If Calvin distances himself from Augustine at any point, it is in relation to the “psychological analogies.” “I doubt if analogies drawn from human things are much use here,” he remarked dryly, when considering the intratrinitarian distinctions.

3.2 Karl Barth (1886–1968)

Barth sets the doctrine of the Trinity at the opening of his Church Dogmatics (1936–69). This simple observation is important, for he totally inverts the position in which it was fixed by F. D. E. Schleiermacher. For Schleiermacher, the Trinity is perhaps the last word which can be said about God; for Barth, it is the word which must be spoken before revelation is even a possibility. It is thus placed at the opening of the Church Dogmatics because its subject matter is what makes Dogmatics possible in the first place. The doctrine of the Trinity undergirds and guarantees the actuality of divine revelation to sinful humanity. It is an “explanatory confirmation,” as Barth puts it, of revelation. It is an exegesis of the fact of revelation. “God reveals himself. He reveals himself through himself. He reveals himself.” With these words (which I have found to be impossible to translate into inclusive language), Barth sets up the revelational framework which leads to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Deus dixit! (“God has spoken!”) – in revelation, and it is the task of theology to inquire concerning what this revelation presupposes and implies. For Barth, the doctrine of the Trinity has an explanatory and regulatory function, which encompasses theology in its entirety. The Trinity is not a puzzle that requires to be solved, but an explanatory framework which sets theology in its proper perspective, and thus offers solutions to its problems and riddles. For Barth, theology is a process of “thinking afterwards” about what is contained in God’s self-revelation. We have to “inquire carefully into the relation between our knowing of God, and God himself in his being and nature.” With such statements, Barth sets up the context of the doctrine of the Trinity: given that God’s self-revelation has taken place, what must be true of God for this to have happened? What does the actuality of revelation have to tell us about the being of God? Barth’s starting-point for his discussion of the Trinity is not a doctrine or an idea, but the actuality of God’s speaking and God’s being heard. For how can God be heard, when sinful humanity is incapable of hearing the Word of God? The above paragraph is simply a paraphrase of sections of the first half-volume of Barth’s Church Dogmatics, entitled “The Doctrine of the Word of God.” There is an enormous amount being said in this, and it requires unpacking. Two themes need to be carefully noted: 1Sinful humanity is fundamentally incapable of hearing the Word of God. 2 Nevertheless, sinful humanity has heard the Word of God, in that this Word makes its sinfulness known to it. The very fact that revelation takes place thus requires explanation. For Barth, this implies that humanity is passive in the process of reception; the process of revelation is, from its beginning to its end, subject to the sovereignty of God as Lord. For revelation to be revelation, God must be capable of effecting self-revelation to sinful humanity, despite their sinfulness. Once this paradox has been appreciated, the general structure of Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity can be followed. In revelation, Barth argues, God must be as shown in the divine self-revelation. There must be a direct correspondence between the revealer and the revelation. If “God reveals himself as Lord” (a characteristically Barthian assertion), then God must be Lord “antecedently in himself.” Revelation is the reiteration in time of what God actually is in eternity. There is thus a direct correspondence between: 1 the revealing God; 2 the self-revelation of God. To put this in the language of trinitarian theology, the Father is revealed in the Son. So what about the Spirit? Here we come to what is perhaps the most difficult aspect of Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity: the idea of revealedness. To explore this, we will have to use an illustration not used by Barth himself. Imagine two individuals, walking outside Jerusalem on a spring day around the year AD 30. They see three men being crucified, and pause to watch. The first points to the central figure, and says “there is a common criminal being executed, second, pointing to the same man, replies, “There is the Son of God dying for me.” To say that Jesus of Nazareth is the self-revelation of God will not do in itself; there must be some means by which Jesus of Nazareth is recognized as the self-revelation of God. It is this recognition of revelation as revelation that lies at the heart of Barth’s idea of “revealedness.” So how is this critical insight achieved? Barth is quite clear: sinful humanity is not capable of reaching this insight unaided. Barth is not prepared to allow humanity any positive role in the interpretation of revelation, believing that this is to subject divine revelation to human theories of knowledge. The interpretation of revelation as revelation must itself be the work of God – more accurately, the work of the Spirit. Humanity does not become capable of hearing the word of the Lord (capax verbi Domini), and then hear the word; hearing and capacity to hear are given in the one act by the Spirit. All this might seem to suggest that Barth is really some kind of modalist, treating the different moments of revelation as different “modes of being” of the same God. It must be conceded immediately that there are those who charge him with precisely this deficiency. Nevertheless, more considered reflection perhaps moves us away from this judgment, although other criticisms can certainly be made. For example, the Spirit fares rather badly in Barth’s exposition, which in this respect can be argued to mirror weaknesses in the western tradition as a whole. However, whatever its weaknesses may be, Barth’s discussion of the Trinity is generally regarded as having reinstated the importance of the doctrine after a period of sustained neglect within dogmatic theology.[12]

3.3 Karl Rahner (1904–84)

Like Barth, Karl Rahner is widely seen as playing a decisive role in the renewal of trinitarian theology in the twentieth century. Rahner’s particular contribution to the development of modern trinitarian theology is generally agreed to be his analysis of the relation between the “economic” and the “immanent” Trinity. The basic distinction here is between the manner in which God is known through revelation in history, and the manner in which God exists internally. The “economic Trinity” can be thought of as the way in which we experience the diversity and unity of God’s self-disclosure in history, and the “immanent Trinity” as God’s diversity and unity as it is in God, as Rahner’s axiom concerning their relationship, which is widely quoted in modern theology, takes the following form: “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity, and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.” In other words, the way God is revealed and experienced in history corresponds to the way in which God actually is. Rahner’s approach to the Trinity is a powerful corrective to certain tendencies in older Catholic trinitarian theology, especially the tendency to focus on the “immanent Trinity” in such a way as to marginalize both human experience of God and the biblical witness to salvation. For Rahner, the “economic” Trinity relates to the “biblical statements concerning the economy of salvation and its threefold structure.” Rahner’s axiom allows him to affirm that the entire work of salvation is the work of one divine person. Despite the complexity of the mystery of salvation, a single divine person can be discerned as its source, origin, and goal. Behind the diversity of the process of salvation there is to be discerned only one God.[13] This fundamental principle of the unity of the economy of salvation can be traced back to Irenaeus (especially in his polemic against the Gnostics, who argued that two divine beings could be distinguished within the economy of salvation. Rahner therefore insists that the proper starting-point of trinitarian discussion is our experience of salvation history, and its biblical expression. The “mystery of salvation” happens first; then we move on to formulate doctrines concerning it. This previous knowledge of the economic Trinity, derived from salvation history and the Bible,” is the starting-point for the process of systematic reflection. The “immanent Trinity” can therefore be thought of as a “systematic conception of the economic Trinity.” Rahner therefore argues that the process of theological reflection which leads to the doctrine of the immanent Trinity has its starting-point in our experience and knowledge of salvation in history. The complexity of that salvation history is ultimately grounded in the divine nature itself. In other words, although we experience diversity and unity within the economy of salvation, that diversity and unity correspond to the way God actually is. Rahner expresses this point as follows: The differentiation of the self-communication of God in history (of truth) and spirit (of love) must belong to God “in himself,” or otherwise this difference, which undoubtedly exists, would do away with God’s self-communication. Either for these modalities and their differentiation is in God himself (although we first experience them from our point of view) or they exist only in us. In other words, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not simply human ways of making sense of the diversity of our experience of the mystery of salvation, nor are they roles which God somehow temporarily assumes for the purpose of entering into our history. Rather, they correspond to the way God actually is. The same God who appears as a Trinity is a Trinity. The way in which God is known in self-revelation corresponds to the way God is internally.

3.4 John Macquarrie

John Macquarrie (1919–2007), a Scottish theologian with roots in the Presbyterian tradition, approaches the doctrine of the Trinity from an existentialist perspective. In his book Principles of Christian Theology Macquarrie argued that the doctrine of the Trinity “safeguards a dynamic as opposed to a static understanding of God.” But how can a dynamic God simultaneously be stable? Macquarrie’s reflections on this tension lead him to conclude that “if God had not revealed himself as triune, we should have been compelled to think of him in some such way.” He explores the dynamic conception of God within the Christian tradition in the following manner. 1 The Father is to be understood as primordial Being. By this, we are meant to understand the ultimate act or energy of letting-be the condition that there should be anything whatsoever, the source not only of whatever is but of all possibilities of being. The Son is to be conceived as “expressive Being.” “Primordial Being,” Macquarrie argues, needs to express itself in the world of beings, which it does by “flowing out through expressive Being.” In adopting this approach, Macquarrie picks up the idea of the Son being the Word or logos, the agent of the Father in the creation of the world. He explicitly relates this form of being to Jesus Christ: “Christians believe that the Father’s Being finds expression above all in the finite being of Jesus.” 3 The Holy Spirit is to be understood as “unitive Being,” in that it “is the function of the Spirit to maintain, strengthen and, where need be, restore the unity of Being with the beings.” The task of the Spirit is to promote new and higher levels of unity between God and the world (between “Being” and “beings,” to use Macquarrie’s terms); it leads the beings back up into a new and richer unity with Being which let them be in the first place. It will be clear that Macquarrie’s approach is genuinely helpful in linking the doctrine of the Trinity with the existential situation of humanity. Yet its weakness also becomes evident, in that there appears to be a certain artificiality involved in the assignment of existential functions to the persons of the Trinity. One wonders what would have happened if the Trinity had happened to have four members; perhaps Macquarrie would have devised a fourth category of being to deal with this situation? But this is a weakness of existential approaches in general, rather than this specific approach in particular. It is also interesting to consider whether Macquarrie’s approach can be considered to be a form of modalism specifically, the functional modalism which we noted earlier. Macquarrie appears to argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be viewed as the revelation of three modes of being within God. Macquarrie’s approach illuminates both the strengths and weaknesses of the existentialist approach to theology. Broadly speaking, these may be stated as follows: 1 the strength of the approach is that it gives a powerful additional dimension to Christian theology, by indicating the ways in which this theology may be correlated with the structures of human existence. 2 The weakness of the approach is that, although capable of existential enhancement of existing Christian doctrines, it is less valuable in establishing those doctrines in the first place.[14]

3.5 Robert Jenson

Writing from a Lutheran perspective, but deeply versed in the Reformed tradition, the contemporary American theologian Robert Jenson has provided a fresh and creative restatement of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. In many ways, it is appropriate to regard Jenson as providing a development of Barth’s position, with its characteristic emphasis upon the need to remain faithful to God’s self-revelation. Jenson’s The Triune Identity: God According to the Gospel (1982) provides a fundamental reference point for discussion of the doctrine in a period which has seen fresh interest develop in this hitherto neglected matter. Jenson argues that “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is the proper name for the God whom Christians know in and through Jesus Christ. It is imperative, he argues,that God should have a proper name. “Trinitarian discourse is Christianity’s effort to identify the God who has claimed us. The doctrine of the Trinity comprises both a proper name, ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’ […] and an elaborate development and analysis of corresponding identifying descriptions.” Jenson points out that ancient Israel was set in a polytheistic context, in which the term “god” conveyed relatively little information. It was necessary to name the god in question. A similar situation was confronted by the writers of the New Testament, who were obliged to identify the god at the heart of their faith, and distinguish this god from the many other gods worshiped and acknowledged in the region, especially in Asia Minor. The doctrine of the Trinity thus identifies and names the Christian God – but identifies and names this God in a manner consistent with the biblical witness. It is not a name which we have chosen; it is a name which has been chosen for us, and which we are authorized to use. In this way, Jenson defends the priority of God’s self-revelation against human constructions of concepts of divinity. “The gospel identifies its God thus: God is the one who raised Israel’s Jesus from the dead. The whole task of theology can be described as the unpacking of this sentence in various ways. One of these produces the church’s trinitarian language and thought.” The doctrine of the Trinity, Jenson affirms, is and was a necessary defense mechanism against such developments. It allows the church to discover the distinctiveness of its creed, and avoid becoming absorbed by rival conceptions of God. However, the church could not ignore its intellectual context. If, on the one hand, its task was to defend the Christian notion of God against rival conceptions of divinity, another of its tasks was to provide “a metaphysical analysis of the gospel’s triune identification of God.” In other words, it was obliged to use the philosophical categories of its day to explain precisely what Christians believed about their God, and how this distinguished them from alternatives. Paradoxically, the attempt to distinguish Christianity from Hellenism led to the introduction of Hellenistic categories into trinitarian discourse. The doctrine of the Trinity thus centers on the recognition that God is named by Scripture, and within the witness of the church. Within the Hebraic tradition, God is identified by historical events. Jenson notes how many Old Testament texts identify God with reference to divine acts in history – such as the liberation of Israel from its captivity in Egypt. The same pattern is evident in the New Testament: God is recognized to be identified with reference to historical events, supremely the resurrection of Jesus Christ. God comes to be identified in relation to Jesus Christ. Who is God? Which god are we talking about? The God who raised Christ from the dead. As Jenson puts it, “the emergence of a semantic pattern in which the uses of ‘God’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ are mutually determining” is of fundamental importance within the New Testament. Jenson thus recovers a personal conception of God from metaphysical speculation. “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is a proper name, which we are asked to use in naming and addressing God. “Linguistic means of identification proper names, identifying descriptions, or both – are a necessity of religion. Prayers, like other requests and praises, must be addressed.” The Trinity is thus an instrument of theological precision, which forces us to be precise about the God under discussion.

3.6 F. D. E. Schleiermacher

Schleiermacher’s approach to theology in his book The Christian Faith (1821–2, revised edition, 1830–1) is to begin with the common human experience of “a feeling of absolute dependence,” which is then interpreted in a Christian sense as “a feeling of absolute dependence upon God.” As a result of a long process of inference from this feeling of dependence, Schleiermacher finally reaches the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine is placed right at the end of the work, as an appendix. For some, such as Karl Barth, this demonstrates that Schleiermacher regarded the Trinity as an appendix to his theology; for others, it suggests that it was the last word that the theologian could utter concerning Godin other words, the climax of the entire theological enterprise.[15]

3.7 Jürgen Moltmann

In The Trinity and the Kingdom of God (1980) Jürgen Moltmann attempts to liberate the Christian doctrine of God from the confines both of the ancient Greek metaphysics of substance and of the modern metaphysics of transcendental subjectivity. Moltmann’s Trinity and the Kingdom of God is of particular importance on account of its fully social doctrine of the Trinity. Moltmann’s social doctrine of the Trinity emphasizes the relative independence of the person and work of the Holy Spirit in its community with the Father and the Son. Developing this in a way that might cause anxiety to some, Moltmann emphasizes that there is no fixed order in the Trinity. Moltmann argues that “the trinitarian persons form their own unity by themselves in the circulation of the divine life.” This conception of God is radically opposed, Moltmann insists, to any “monotheistic” or “monarchical” doctrine of God which would reduce the real subjectivity of the three persons. Of particular interest is Moltmann’s use of this notion to develop a fundamentally theological understanding of human society. “The trinity is our social program.” For Jürgen Moltmann, the doctrine of the Trinity is to be understood to provide a vision of God as a union of three divine persons or distinct, but related subjects. This specific understanding of God as a mutually loving, interacting, and sustaining society allows Christian theology to develop a theory of society. “The social doctrine of the Trinity is in a position to overcome both monotheism in the concept of God and individualism in the doctrine of man, and to develop a social personalism and personalistsocialism.” For Moltmann, the Christian concept of the Trinity provides “the exemplar of true human community, first in the church and also in society.” Excessively authoritarian and centralized notions of government rest upon a conception of God which stresses God’s “monarchy,” rather than a trinitarian doctrine of God, which stresses the divine unity and community. Moltmann therefore sees the social view of the Trinity as having both a theological and a social function: theologically, it offers a penetrating critique of a false idea of God; socially, it articulates a notion of God as a social being, capable of functioning as a proper paradigm for society as a whole. The triune God reflected only in a united and uniting community of Christians without domination and subjection and a united and uniting humanity without class rule and without dictatorial oppression. That is the world, in which people defined by their social relationships and not by their power or their property. That is the world, in which human beings have all things in common and share everything with one another except their personal qualities.

3.8 C S Lewis’ Three Dimensions

Dr. C S Lewis In his book The Mere Christianity, he suggested that human shouldn't be able to fully grasp a Being that is beyond earthly dimension world. For instence, in the space you can move in three ways to left or right, backwards or forwards, and up or down. Every direction is either one of these three or a compromise between them. They are called the three Dimensions. Now notice this. If you are using only one dimension, you could draw only a straight line. If you are using two, you could draw a figure: say, a square. And a square is made up of four straight lines. Now a step further. If you have three dimensions, you can then build what we call a solid body, say, a cube a thing like a dice or a lump of sugar. And a cube is made up of six squares. Do you see the point? A world of one dimension would be a straight line. In a two-dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three-dimensional world, you still get figures but many figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things you found on the simpler levels: you still have them, but combined in new ways in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.

Now the Christian account of God involves just the same principle. The human level is a simple and rather empty level. On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings; just as, in two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure, and any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level you still find personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine.

In God's dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube. But we can get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do, we are then, for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something superpersonal something more than a person. It is something we could never have guessed, and yet, once we have been told, one almost feels one ought to have been able to guess it because it fits in so well with all the things we know already.[16]

3.9 Peter Kreeft: Trinity and love

Dr. Kreeft’s approach to the doctrine of Trinity; the reason God is a Trinity is because God is love. Love requires twoness, in fact threeness: the lover, the beloved, and the act, or relationship, of love between them. God is Trinity because God is love itself in its completeness.[17] The doctrine of the Trinity makes the most concrete and practical difference to our lives that can possibly be imagined. Because God is a Trinity, God is love. Because God is love, love is the supreme value. Because love is the supreme value, it is the meaning of our fives, for we are created in God’s image. The fact that God is a Trinity is the reason why love is the meaning of life and the reason why nothing makes us as happy as love: because that is inscribed in our design. We are happy only when we stop trying to be what we were not designed to be. Cats are not happy living like dogs, and saints are not happy living like sinners. The doctrine of the Trinity also tells us the nature of love. Love is altruistic, not egotistic. God is other-love because he has otherness within himself; he is more than one Person. Pope John Paul II says: “God in his deepest mystery is not solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship, and the essence of the family, which is love.” The doctrine of the Trinity means that the family is not a mere sociological or biological human fact but “goes all the way up” into the nature of God.

3.10 Domenic Marbaniang

Dr. Domenic Marbaniang is a professor of philosophy and Christian Apologetics at Central Indian Theological Seminary Itarsi (MP) as well as a visiting staff in several Christian Institutions around the India. He is the author of over thirty books, he also writes the online articles and responses on contemporary issues. In his blog he has posted over 12 hundred views on almost every aspect of our Christian life and belief. For more information, and to use his tremendous contributions for the contemporary Christianity kindly visit his blog http://domenicm.blogspot.in. Interestingly, I have the privilege to study under him in my ongoing degree of Master of Christian Apologetics.

Let us look at the formulation of Dr. Marbaniang in defense of Trinity. Dr. Marbaniang composes his formulation of doctrine of Trinity in simplest three terms or topics, which we can see as following:

3.10.1 Essential Elements of Trinity

1. God is One.

2. Each of the persons within the Godhead is Deity.

3. The oneness of God and the threeness of God are not contradictions.

4. The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is eternal.

5. Each of the persons of God is of the same essence and is not inferior or superior to the others in essence.

6. The Trinity is a mystery which we will never be able to understand fully.

3.10.2 The Importance of Doctrine of Trinity

1. Ground of Morality

Provides the rationaleternal basis for moral categories If God was a not a Trinity, then categories such as love, joy, and goodness couldn't be absolute.

2. Ground of Relationality

Provides the relational basis for interpersonal relationships. Therefore, Christ could pray regarding His disciples, "that they may be one, as We are" (Jn. 17:11).

3. Ground of Knowability

Provides the rationalempirical basis for epistemic categories if God was not a Trinity, then the knowledge as a subject object-relationship, as analyticsynthetic distinction, and Truth as such couldn't find an original ground.

4. Ground of Plurality

Provides the metaphysical ground for a pluralist reality, and unity in diversity of the universe

3.10.3 Natural Illustrations 1x1x1=1 (Nathan Wood)

1. Length x Breadth x Height = Space

2. Energy x Motion x Phenomenon = Matter

3. Future x Present x Past = Time

4. Space x Matter x Time = Universe

5. Nature x Person x Personality = Man

In his formulation, the first section deals with the Essential Elements of Trinity with the composition of six premises, each premise base on traditional Trinitarian conception. The sixth premise closed with confession that “Trinity is a mystery, which we will never be able to understand fully.” It seems that in the sixth premise Dr. Marbaniang closing the door to understand the doctrine of Trinity rationally, in fact, not. Because the truth that obviously revealed to us is very simple; God is an infinite being in his essence whereas man is a finite being. Dr. R C Sproul has given a wonderful comment on the nature of God in his lecture series on the doctrine of Trinity; he mentions, “in order to know God fully you need to become a god.” No doubt, Dr. Marbaniang also flows in the same stream. Therefore, we need be submitted to the fact of reality. Dr. Marbaniang writes continues the second section of the formulation; the Importance of the doctrine of Trinity, in which he provides four coherent and relievable grounds for the doctrine of Trinity, namely moral ground, relational ground, epistemic ground, and ground for the plurality where Dr Marbaniang maintains his pure reasoning capability in case of defending the doctrine of Trinity. Finally, Dr Marbaiang supports Dr Nathan’s natural illustration (The Trinity in the Universe) or analogy on the doctrine of Trinity. In fact, Dr. Marbaniang dismissed all the analogies given once upon a time in defense of doctrine of Trinity. For instance, the egg, ice, water, vapor, 3 headed man, Pie (3 slices), Sun, heat and light, Triangle: 3 sides and one triangle, Circle, one person bearing multiple relations simultaneously (aunt, mother, sister), shamrock, Electromagnetism: light is a wave and a particle and has an associated magnetic wave always presents with it but they’re inseparable, the Trinity is like Playdoh, one can take some apart but it’s the same Playdoh, apple (skin, core, fruit), Cerberus the Greek mythological three heads dog etc. Dr. Marbaniang uses only natural illustrations or analogies with logical consistency; in fact, the illustrations Dr. Marbaniang supports are logically coherent in one way. For instance, when we deal with the necessary beings in the doctrine of Trinity we find that these illustration or analogies are helpful to understand the relational necessarily unity in the diversity. Because the very reason for me to analyze the doctrine of Trinity critically was not to defend the divinity of the second and third person of the holy Trinity, nevertheless, I tried to do it in the first chapter of this course paper. Indeed, the question was this; why there are only three persons in the Godhead, why not less than three persons or more than three persons? In addition, how these three persons are interactive in such relation in which they known as One God and on the other side act as separate person while remain same God?

The natural illustrations or analogies supported why Dr Marbaniang to illustrate the doctrine of Trinity gives the necessarily unificational understanding of the doctrine of Trinity. Nevertheless, the Trinity still seems in dilemma or unsolved condition; which I submit humbly and respectfully to my professor with intention of more explanation on the respective subject.

The explanation I intent is, for instance; fourth line of natural illustrations: (4) Space x Matter x Time = Universe/Father is God x Jesus is God x Holy Spirit is God = God. For more explicit we can put in this way; Space is universe ~ (in fact, only space is not universe) x Matter is universe ~ (in fact, only matter is not universe) x Time is universe ~ (in fact, only time is not universes) = Universe. Therefore, in this analogy; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are only God when they are in unity; none of them is God in his own or personal being.

3.11 William Lane Craig Formulation

Dr. Craig’s education of the doctrine provides the key for how the doctrine of Trinity can be logically coherent. Dr. Craig formulation of the doctrine of Trinity considers the following premises:

1. The Father is God

2. The Son is God

3. The Father is not the Son

For Dr. Craig these statements form a logical contradiction if they are all statements of identity. However, imagine the copula (the word “is”) being “is” used in a different sense, like how it is used in the following:

1. Ice is H₂O

2. Water is H₂O

3. Ice is not water

If the copula (the word “is”) is understood as one of prediction rather than identity, then the statement of that logical structure becomes perfectly coherent.

In sort, person is a proper part of the one Godhead, three divine persons on one God. In this critique I want keep my focus on the analogy of Dr. Craig in defense of Doctrine of Trinity rather than his formulation. Because, once again I want to mention that my intention on this critical evaluation of the Doctrine of Trinity is not to analyze the deity of each person in the Trinity but on the necessary beings in the Trinity. Therefore, in the Dr. Craig’s analogy let’s see how it is valid or invalid. As following Dr. Craig’s analogy:

Perhaps we can get a start at this question by means of an analogy. (There is no reason to think that there must be any analogy to the Trinity among created things, but analogies may prove helpful as a springboard for philosophical reflection and formulation.) In Greco-Roman mythology there is said to stand guarding the gates of Hades a three-headed dog named Cerberus. We may suppose that Cerberus has three brains and therefore three distinct states of consciousness of whatever it is like to be a dog. Therefore, Cerberus, while a sentient being, does not have a unified consciousness. He has three consciousnesses. We could even assign proper names to each of them: Rover, Bowser, and Spike. These centers of consciousness are entirely discrete and might well come into conflict with one another. Still, in order for Cerberus to be biologically viable, not to mention in order to function effectively as a guard dog, there must be a considerable degree of cooperation among Rover, Bowser, and Spike. Despite the diversity of his mental states, Cerberus is clearly one dog. He is a single biological organism exemplifying a canine nature. Rover, Bowser, and Spike may be said to be canine, too, though they are not three dogs, but parts of the one dog Cerberus. If Hercules were attempting to enter Hades, and Spike snarled at him or bit his leg, he might well report, “Cerberus snarled at me” or “Cerberus attacked me.” Although the Church Fathers rejected analogies like Cerberus, once we give up divine simplicity Cerberus does seem to represent what Augustine called an image of the Trinity among creatures.

We can enhance the Cerberus story by investing him with rationality and self-consciousness. In that case Rover, Bowser, and Spike are plausibly personal agents and Cerberus a tri-personal being. Now if we were asked what makes Cerberus a single being despite his multiple minds, we should doubtless reply that it is because he has a single physical body. But suppose Cerberus were to be killed, and his minds survive the death of his body. In what sense would they still be one being? How would they differ intrinsically from three exactly similar minds which have always been unembodied? Since the divine persons are, prior to the Incarnation, three unembodied Minds, in virtue of what are they one being rather than three individual beings? The question of what makes several parts constitute a single object rather than distinct objects is a difficult one. But in this case perhaps we can get some insight by reflecting on the nature of the soul.

Dr. Craig gave very good analogy in sense of unity in diversity but on the other side it would be utterly fail to explain that why Cerberus should have only three heads why not two, four or more and you can go keep on adding constantly that may surely fall only in two concepts either Tritheism or polytheism.

CONCLUSION

Most of the Scholars, for instance; Benjamin B. Warfield, William Lane Craig, R.C. Sproul, C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Domenic Marbaniang, Beilsy Isaac, John Lenox etc. think and have suggest that coming with an accurate conclusion for the topic like Trinity or Triune God indeed what actually it is not possible with human mind. Therefore, finally Scholars come to a conclusion in their formulations that Trinity is some kind of mystery which human being cannot understand fully. However, here I want to bring forth some formulations on the Doctrine of Trinity. My intention is not that I have accurate conclusion on the respected topic; rather I want to hold better one which is more reasonable and align with the Holy Scripture.

Dr. Domenic Marbaniang Formulation

To understanding of the Doctrine of Trinity in contemporary perspective Dr. Marbaninag suggests three basic approaches, which I do feel very clear, easy, teachable, and comprehensible approaches even to the ground level people then comparing with others approaches to the Doctrine of Trinity.

The Rational Approach. It seeks to find in the doctrine of Trinity a rational ground for the absolute nature of Truth. Truth implies absoluteness of knowledge in a subject-object relationship, which would be groundless if God were a monad. Therefore, Trinity proves to be a solid ground for the possibility of knowledge. Similarly, personality finds its best explanation in the personal nature of God, whose existence as three persons (I-YOU-HE Sufficiency) in one Godhead is the ground of personhood.

The Moral Approach. It seeks to find in the doctrine of Trinity a rational ground for the absolute nature of moral virtues, such as love, goodness, and joy. If God didn’t eternally exist in a subject-object relationship, then He would be amoral and morality would not be absolute. The doctrine of Trinity provides a rational ground for any discussion of morality with respect to its absolute nature.

The Empirical Approach. Some have suggested the analogy of the Sun (Sun-Sunlight-Sunheat). Nathan Wood used the now popular 1x1x1=1 analogy with instances from space and time (e.g. Length x Breadth x Height = Space; Past x Present x Future = Time). Still others used more naturalistic analogies; however, these could lead to tri-partiatism or Sabellianism (e.g. these are not acceptable: Water-Steam-Ice; Three parts of humans, etc).

Athanasian Creed: Identity and Relative Identity

Athanasian Creed defines Trinitarian orthodoxy as follows:

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost… Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost… The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.[18]

Christians are thus committed to the following claims:

1. The Father is God

2. The Son is God

3. The Holy Spirit is God

4. The Father is not the Son

5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit

6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit

7. There is exactly one God

Can one consistently believe (1) – (7)? It depends on how we read the “is” in (1) – (6). If we read it throughout as the “is” of strict identity, as “=” the answer is no. Identity is an equivalence relation: it is reflexive, symmetric and transitive, which is to say, for all x, y and z the following hold:

Reflexivity: x = x

Symmetry: If x = y then y = x

Transitivity: If x = y and y = z then x = z

In addition, identity is an unrestricted indiscernibility relation for all properties, which is to say it obeys Leibniz’ Law, understood as the Indiscernibility of Identical:

LL: If x = y then for all properties, P, x has P if and only if y has P

Suppose we read the “is” as “=” in (1) – (6). Then it follows from (1) and (2), by symmetry and transitivity, that the Father is the Son, which contradicts (4).

So “is” meaning “=” is problematic.

Sortal Term: Sortals provide rules for counting. Counting by book, two copies of Ulysses count as two; counting by literary work, they count as one. Similarly, the suggestion is that counting by divine person, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit count as three but counting by god they count as one and so we can affirm (7): there is exactly one God.

Inwagen and Geach’s Proposal

Identity statements of the form “x is identical with y” are incomplete: they are elliptical for “x is the same F as y” where F is a sortal term, that is a count noun that conveys criteria of identity.

Nothing answers to phrases of the form ‘x is the same simpliciter as y’, ‘x is numerically identical with y’, ‘x is identical with y’, ‘x is absolutely identical with y’ or ‘x = y’. Rather, there are indefinitely many ‘relations of relative identity’ expressed by phrases of the form ‘is the same N as’, where N takes count nouns as instances, e.g. ‘is the same horse as’. Relative identity relations are neither universally reflexive nor force indiscernibility. They are not universally reflexive because, if they were, then it would be true that Obama is the same donkey as Tommy; but Tommy is not the same donkey as anything (2003: 93). If relative identity relations forced indiscernibility, then anything that we could say by using ‘x is the same N as y’ we could just as well say by using ‘x is an N, y is an N, and x is identical with y’.

The Relative identity can be summarised as

“x” is an “F”. “y” is an “F”, “x” is a “G”, “y” is a “G”, “x” is the same as “F” as “y”, but “x” is not same as the “G” as “y”.

(1_R) The Father is the same god as God

(2_R) The Son is the same god as God

(3_R) The Holy Spirit is the same god as God

(4_R) The Father is not the same divine person as the Son

(5_R) The Father is not the same divine person as the Holy Spirit

(6_R) The Son is not the same divine person as the Holy Spirit

The relative identity account of Trinitarian claims is similar to the reconstruction of Trinitarian claims in (1'') – (6'') insofar as rely on the strategy of invoking different relations in the first and last three statements: the relations of being-part-of-the-same-whole-as and being-the-same-part-as are different to one another as are the relations of being-the-same-god-as and being-the-same-divine-person-as. Consequently, (1_R) – (6_R) are consistent with (7).

Michael Rea’s Supplement

According to Brower and Rea (BR), we can dispel the mystery surrounding the Trinity if we attend to their solution to the problem of material constitution. Imagine ‘an artistic building contractor who fashions a marble statue that is to be used as a pillar in the building he is constructing’. On the one hand, it seems that the pillar could exist without the statue and vice-versa, and so the pillar is not the same as the statue; on the other hand, it seems that there could not be two material objects entirely located in exactly the same region, and so the pillar is the same as the statue. To avoid the contradiction, BR do two things. First, they distinguish two species of numerical sameness: (i) sameness with identity, that is, identity, and (ii) sameness without identity. Second, they say that the statue is numerically the same as, but not identical with, the pillar. By way of explanation, BR appeal to the Aristotelian idea of a hylomorphic compound, according to which all familiar objects are matter-form compounds, where matter is undifferentiated stuff and a form is an organizational property. For example, the pillar is a compound of the form being a pillar instantiated by some matter at a particular region while the statue is a compound of the property of being a statue instantiated by the same matter in the same region. However, in their case, although the pillar is not identical with the statue because they have different properties, the pillar is the same material object as the statue because they share the same matter. And so the number of material objects in the region they occupy is one, even though the number of objects or hylomorphic compounds in that region is two.

BR claim that hylomorphism, so understood, provides ‘an illuminating account of inter-Trinitarian relations’. In fact, it is so illuminating, they say, that ‘the problem of the Trinity disappears’. For, although the Persons cannot be hylomorphic compounds since they are not material, they can be compounds of distinct forms—‘Person-defining properties’ like Fatherhood, Sonship, and Processing—and something that ‘plays the role of matter’. BR identify that something as ‘immaterial stuff’. Just as the pillar is distinct from the statue but, because they share the same matter, the pillar is the same material object as the statue, so the Father is distinct from the Son but, because they share the same immaterial stuff, the Father is the same God as the Son.

On BR’s model, it is false that (1.2) if the Father is the same God as the Son, then the Father is a God, the Son is a God, and the Father is identical with the Son. For if the Father is the same God as the Son, then the Father is a God, the Son is a God, and the Father is numerically the same without identity as the Son. Moreover, on BR’s model, it is false that (2.3) if the Father is God and the Son is God, then the Father is the Son. That’s because, although it is true that the Father is identical with God and it is true that the Son is identical with God, it does not follow that the Father is identical with the Son. By way of explanation, BR say that ‘God’ can refer to each of the Persons. So the only truth expressed by ‘the Father is identical with God’ is the proposition that the Father is identical with the Father, and the only truth expressed by ‘the Son is identical with God’ is the proposition that the Son is identical with the Son. It does not follow from these two propositions that the Father is identical with the Son. Furthermore, on BR’s model, it is false that (3.5) if the Father is not the Son and each is a God, there are at least two Gods. For although the Father is distinct from the Son and both are a God, they share the same immaterial stuff, and so each is the same God (without identity) as the other; thus, there is only one God.

[1] Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (KJV) (USA: Dake Publishing, 2001), 251.

[2] Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (KJV), 280.

[3] Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (KJV), 386.

[4] Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (KJV), 59.

[5] 1 John 5:7 says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Some Bible critics have stated that this passage is not authentic because it is not found in some older manuscripts. This verse is found in mss, 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318) along with two lectionaries (60, 173) and four fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome mention it. However, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity does not rest on one verse of Scripture, but is found throughout the Old and New Testaments. This verse accurately states the doctrine of the Trinity that God is One God in three Persons.

[6] PC Study BibleV5, Interlinear Transliterated Bible ([n. p.]: Bible soft, 2006), Strong Number 259.

[7] R. Laird Harris and others, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 30.

[8] Renald E. Showers, Israel My Glory, God is Triune, Friends of Israel, January/February 2002,

p37.

[9] H. Wayne House, Chart of Christian Theology and Doctrines (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 44-46.

[10] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction 5^th Ed (USA: Wiley Blackwell Publication, 2011), 234.

[11] McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction 5^th Ed, 237.

[12] Alan Torrance, "The Trinity," in John Webster Ed, The Cambridge Companion To Karl Barth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 72-74.

[13] McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction 5^th Ed, 238.

[14] John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (London: SCM Press, 1977), 195.

[15] Graham Oppy and N. N. Trakakis, Eds, Nineteenth Century Philosophy of Religon: The History of Western Philosophy of Religion Vol. 4 (London: Routledge, 2009), 34-35.

[16] C S Lewis, Mere Christianity (England: Broadcast Talks, 1943), 73.

[17] Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Beliefs Based on the Catechism of the Catholoc Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), 83.

[18] Peter C. Phan, Ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 10.

बाइबिल संदेश

Search This Blog

Thursday 19 May 2016

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY

No comments:

Post a Comment

My Blog List

Translate

About Me