The Trinity
I came across this today and want to see what you all thought about it. This is a statement on the Trinity my Marcus Borg, from The Meaning of Jesus, Two Visions:
… the popular notions of the Trinity commonly imagine God as a committee of three somewhat separate divine beings. But in both Greek and Latin, the word translated “person” means a mask, such as that worn by an actor in the theater - not as a means of concealment, but as a way of playing different roles. Applying this to the notion of God, the one God in known in three primary ways: as the God of Israel, as the Word and Wisdom of God in Jesus, and as the abiding Spirit.
While I would differ on the primary meaning of Jesus, and that he alludes to pantheism a few pages back, (that is another post) I really like this way of visualizing the concept of the Trinity. What do you all think? And if I may, please include along with your reasons the above is incorrect, the view that you think is better.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I am not sure about that analysis is correct, on several levels. The first thing that I want to point to is that the nature of God is in fact a mystery and as such we will not be able to accurately describe it in full. As a result of this, we can give truth nuggets wrapped in metaphor and analogy. The mask analogy serves to stress the unity in being of God, that He is unified. Christians are rightly criticized for being very close to being Tritheists. It is very easy to see Jesus as separate from the Father to the point where one considers them so separate that while one would never admit it, they are seperate Gods in one’s mind.
Secondly, I am not sure that what Borg said (in and of itself, without the attached theological additions from the Oneness Pentecostals, ect) would constitute a heresy. How exactly does it?
I am with you with what you said about the trinity. I detailed it in a previous post.
Your argument about this falling into heresy (a very serious charge) hinges on how distinct the persons of the trinity are. I am not sure that is an answerable question. As such, as long as one maintains a distinction and maintains a unity, I am not sure it should fall under heresy.
Henry said:
“The first thing that I want to point to is that the nature of God is in fact a mystery and as such we will not be able to accurately describe it in full.”
I agree. However, the question is where do we put the mystery in light of biblical revelation? God has revealed Himself to man through His word and through it has described much about Himself (as you hopefully noted there are scriptures supporting each point of logic in the above argument I laid out for the Trinity) So I conclude especially in light of Deut 29:29 that God has revealed things about His nature but to go beyond what is revealed is mere speculation. The conclusion reached based upon the fact that there is one God, Christ and the Spirit are revealed as God, yet are all separate is to say that they are one God (essence) yet three persons. How this can be is a mystery, and I am ok with that.
next:
“The mask analogy serves to stress the unity in being of God, that He is unified. Christians are rightly criticized for being very close to being Tritheists”
Well the unity emphasized through a man made analogy erases the distinction between the persons of God which the bible makes. Moreover, I do not know how I as a Trinitarian could rightly be called a “Tri-theist” (that what Mormons think) this is a misunderstanding of the Trinity. Muslims are always accusing Christians of this, it almost seems like a straw man fallacy. Because I believe in one God consisting in three persons.
“Secondly, I am not sure that what Borg said (in and of itself, without the attached theological additions from the Oneness Pentecostals, ect) would constitute a heresy. How exactly does it?”
Well this is what the Catholic Church ruled when this same teaching came up over a thousand years ago. Wrong and extra biblical is less of a dirty word than “heresy” I guess.
Along these lines, you also said:
“As such, as long as one maintains a distinction and maintains a unity, I am not sure it should fall under heresy.”
Yeah, I would like to agree. As I said, I have a few friends who were very militant about their modalistic views on God. Nevertheless, I am pretty sure that they were saved. They did not deny the divinity of any person, nor really preach another way to be reconciled to God. I think because there is mystery in the Oneness yet threeness (gotta make up a word to even describe this :) that modalism is a less baffling way to describe God’s persons.
Yep, nothing new. Just a recycled heresy called “Modalism” the oneness Pentecostals hold the same view these days. The “masks” idea is basically used to say that it is all the same singular person just putting on different masks. God uses the Jesus mask, the Father mask, and the Spirit mask but it is all the same person. The three are not separate persons, but one. (This is the difference between the orthodox Trinitarian position and Modalism). Oh and I think he needs to do more homework on the Greek for “person”, like open a Greek dictionary!
Anyway problems with Modalism or a logical argument for the Trinity:
What Borg has seems to support is a form of Modalism. I have some friends who were Oneness Pentecostals and they said the same stuff. They saw the three persons as three progressive revelations (or masks) God has put on in dealing with humanity. The natural man cannot grasp the Trinity but that is the logical conclusion of the biblical texts about God’s personhood, there is a mystery here and we need to be ok with that (Deut 29:29).