Its Not Supposed To Make Sense (or) Come On, Patrick!

So, at church during the sermon, I had an "ah-ha" moment.  How or what brought it on, I'm not entirely sure (especially since I'm typing this sentence at 9:50 pm, local after a long day).

The doctrine of the Trinity can be explained with the doctrine of vocation.

Don't believe me, lets ask St. Patrick...

Okay, so maybe that wasn't clear.  (Or maybe it was, but just snarky.)  But what I realized what that the Trinity is describing the vocations of God.

Now, if any who are in a position of officialness in the LC-MS read and see I've somehow wondered off the path, please call me out.  But I think I'm looking at this rationally (and hopefully Biblically).  So, first, some background, and since I gave a whole week describing issues of vocation, we'll look at the brain-bender.

The Trinity.

The "classic" Trinity shield.  In the center is God (Deus).  At the top is the Father (P, for Pater), on the bottom right is the Son (F, for Filius), and the bottom left is the Holy Spirit (SS, for Spiritus Sanctus).

[By the way, if you ever listen to some self-proclaimed evangelist/apostle/prophet/preacher/used-car salesman say something like "the power of holy spirit" or "I was told by holy ghost" but never uses the definite article, he/she is not talking about God.]

Now, I know the shield is in Latin, and most of us don't speak Latin, but its pretty easy to figure out.  The lines between the Three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) leading to God note that each Person is God.  (The Father is [est] God, etc.)  Around the shield it denotes the differences between the Persons.   (The Son is not [non est] the Holy Spirit, etc.)

For lack of better word at the moment, the different persons of the Trinity are different roles of God.  However, they are not mutually exclusive, nor are they situationally monopolizing.  Consider, I have the vocations of husband, father, and son.

The savvy among you will have already noted that I'm edging dangerously close to Modalism.  But, please remember, I'm trying to use human language to explain a concept that is a logical as a blind man explaining 4-D psychedelic patterns.

How then can I dare use what looks to be Modalism to explain the Trinity?  Well, remember what I wrote regarding vocation (if you need to, go back and read it, part 5 should be most applicable).  Vocations are not like suits.  When I am at home watching my children, I am still a husband, and still a son.  There are times when a specific vocation is "lead," but I will never truly put off a vocation.  I will always be a son (even after my parents have gone home), and I will always be a father (even after my children move out).  My vocations are concurrent.

The same is true with the Trinity (though even bigger, and less linear).  There is never a time when God is not the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.  God has always been all three.  But there are times where His interaction with us is dominated (for lack of better word) by one Person or another.

At Creation all Three are present.

At the meeting with Abraham to discuss the upcoming birth of Isaac, God physically meets with his servant.  I'm pretty sure that's the Son, pre-incarnate.

Throughout Christ's life He interacted with us as the Son, though the Father and Spirit were evidently present at the baptism.

At Pentecost the Holy Spirit was in the driver's seat, given the Apostles the words to speak.

At no time in any of these events is God divided.  Even on the Cross, as Christ The Son of God is killed, all three Persons are there.  All we see is the Son, because that's all we can see right now.  Our mind cannot comprehend it, at least not fully, and not without the danger of messing up.

So then why did I dare to write about the Trinity when the chance of running into heresy is high?  Because I thought my "ah-ha" was worth sharing.  Think about it.  Looking at the Trinity as vocational, at least for me, takes away some of the division that we as humans automatically assume is there.  And we do assume, since we are told there are three Persons, so clearly there must be some kind of distinction.  There is, and I believe that the doctrine of vocation is one lens by which to see it.

That is at times how doctrine works.  Different perspectives (as in a fresh set of eyes, not necessarily a different philosophy) can sometimes provide clarity.  Is what I said the "last word?"  Of course not.  But perhaps it will help you understand a non-linear concept a little better.

Why do I call the doctrine of the Trinity "non-linear?"  Human logic and reason (which are good tools to use to understand) see things as "A + B = C."  There is a consistent and rational explanation for things.

If I pick up a hot plate without an oven mitt I will burn my hand.

If I do not take and umbrella or coat I run the risk of getting rained on.

If I mail my bill payments on time I will not be charged a late fee.

But God does not operate within human logic and reason unless He wants to.  He's outside our context.  He's not bound by the limits of natural order.  He created everything by simply speaking.  To demand God operate in a way limited by our pathetic understanding of the universe is insulting to God.

Yep, you heard that right.  I just said guys like deGrasse Tyson, Nye, Dawkins are all arrogant and dumb for wanting to force God to submit to something their limited brain capacity can understand.  But, they are coming from a worldview that has no hope, and refuses to accept the possibility that there is an all powerful deity.

Hilariously, the counterpoint for their argument that "God cannot exist" is from 1078.

"If it is even possible that God does exist, than if follows logically that God does exist."
-Anselm of Canterbury

 Anselm's Ontological Argument (ontology is the study of the nature of existence and being) is pretty simple, though, I'll admit, it does require a bit of a presupposition.  It assumes it is possible for God.  That is not a position that can be "scientifically" rationalized, which is why the dodos* can't accept it as a rational argument.

And yet they can't understand why some of us cannot except the argument of the Big Bang, which has the same presupposition.  What they conveniently forget is that the idea of the existence of a deity is one all humans seem to gravitate toward.  If that were not the case, then there would not be so many different religions worldwide.  But I'll let Anselm's argument speak for itself.

Now, I've strayed from the Trinity, but the existence of God, and His nature of Perfect, is necessary for understanding.  Morality is among these, and the maker of the previous video has one on the Moral Argument (with the dodos love too).  But if there is not God, there is no objective morality, no right and wrong, and no reason for reason for someone to say I'm wrong with I say I don't believe what the dodos believe.

Bazinga.

Now, we're quickly spinning down a rabbit hole I wasn't planning on meeting, so I'll stop now.  And will undoubtedly deal with this topic again.  And again.  And again.  Hopefully this has helped someone wrap their brains around the idea of the Trinity.  If not, just read the Athanasian Creed.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

(Celtic knots are so cool.)

In the meantime, I'm going to keep fiddling with a few things.  Working on my story, playing with the concepts of the Armor of God, might write on heresies, probably should get some Fanta, and looking forward to the 500th anniversary of the posting of the 95 Theses.  Going to have to do something for that.

*And, yes, I called Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and Richard Dawkins "dodos."  Serves them right.