5
6

Trinity vs. Godhead (self.Christianity)

jon12343 が 投稿

I will admit, I am agnostic about this but am also a history geek and this question was, for some reason, hugely important in the First Council of Nicaea. IMHO, that particular debate was as much about temporal power (publicly preaching a doctrine different than your Bishop - especially at a time before the Canon and with gnostic gospels and other kinds phony preaching going on) - got it in that context.

Today however, I am trying to figure out why this remains a big deal ... at all? Whether the three aspects are different aspects of the same being or separate aspects under the control of Heavenly Father seems, for lack of a better term, semantical?

What is really important, and what seems to cross all denominations is wha the three aspects do and how we interact with them.

God the Father - Creator of all things (Head honcho if you will)

God the Son - Intercession and mercy, grace, the human face of God, Savior.

Holy Spirit - giver of testimony, speaker of truth.

That is, of course, very simplified (trying not to step on the toes of any particular denomination). However, spiritual pragmatism is something that I appreciate, immensely. That my testimony came from the Holy Spirit has a fundamental 'truth' to it, if you are looking for truth, then you need the Holy Spirit.

In short, I don't really understand why there is so much debate about this, particularly as the political process heats up with the next election cycle, and, assuming its because it is the doctrinal position that emerges from the Nicaean Council, I routinely come across denunciations from the Trinitarian side who declare those who are not in alignment with separate but one doctrine to not really be Christians.

I am not sure why doctrinal adherence to a decision made 1700 years ago, while mooting in many cases the pragmatic interaction and relationship that we can have (and indeed should have), seems a bit superfluous to me? The church at Nicaea needed 'oneness' in a very practical sense. Now?

Am I missing something here?

If I have received a strong testimony from the Holy Spirit, for example (I have), but I believe that the three aspects are distinctly separate (or not) ... what practical effect does it have on my Christianity?

全 42 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Eastern Orthodox (OCA)pm_me_creative_names 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

If you have time, maybe while driving somewhere or something, listen to this. I'm about to head out the door for work myself, so I don't have time to say much more than that it's a podcast entitled "The Necessity of the Trinity" by the late Fr. Tom Hopko, one of the most well known and well respected modern Orthodox Christian theologians.

[–]jon12343[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'll give it a shot. Anything that I can read, per chance?

[–]Anglican CommunionIm_just_saying 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

This. I'll send you a PDF if you'd like.

[–]jon12343[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm never on to turn down anything free .. unless its junk. Scripture is not.

I will offer one word of caution however, as I have not really been able to find much about the contents (the reviews on Amazon and Goodreads are ... identical and don't really explain the reasoning much).

I would state that I get the role of the Trinity just fine. I understand, and indeed believe its critically important to teach the three aspects. What I am not so concerned about is whether the three aspects are separate but one, or separate. I don't think it has any practical effect on the practice of Christianity.

In the era of pre-Canonical Christianity, that was not the case, for many reasons. Again, as a history geek, placing myself in historical context, I would have supported the Trinitarian view as well. As my ACTUAL relationship with Christ has deepened though, there is something in the ... dismissal of brother and sisters from the tent of Christ over this no longer critically important doctrinal issue.

What is the substantial and practical difference between, "aspects as a unified council of separate beings in full harmony," and, "The three aspects are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature"?

I am a bit older, so although it disheartens me that such a minor point came to dominate the doctrinal discussions, while potentially much more divisive issue like the 'secret doctrine' meant only for the chosen few were, were largely solved, it does not surprise me.

What surprises me now is that the debate still rages 1700 years later and that we would disregard someone from fellowship and support over a doctrinal issue that is ... who cares?

Its important, the interaction with the beings in perfect harmony one way or the other, is a critical aspect of our interaction with Heavenly Father. I just don;t know that we should answer the question about whether these are one or three with anything more than, "You decide."

[–]Eastern Orthodox (OCA)pm_me_creative_names 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

/u/im_just_saying wrote that book, if I'm not mistaken.

[–]jon12343[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I chuckled, but in a good way ;-)

I'll shoot him a message and see if he'll drop a line in this thread. Thanks for the message.

[–]Eastern Orthodox (OCA)pm_me_creative_names 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's the one who recommended it, and offered to send it to you. :-p

[–]Anglican CommunionIm_just_saying 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

OK - sending you a PM.

[–]MrUnbreakable13 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think the last question is the most important one. I've yet to hear any good responses to why we should concentrate on such things when they do not add to our spiritual walk.

[–]Eastern Orthodox (OCA)pm_me_creative_names 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

At least to an Orthodox Christian, they do.

[–]Eastern OrthodoxPinkfish_411 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

The difference is pretty huge. Either God became a human being, or not. If the Son does not share one and the same nature with the Father, then God did not become a human being. This has huge implications for how we understand things like salvation (especially if we conceive of salvation as deification, like virtually all Eastern Orthodox and many Catholics and Protestants do), the idea of divine revelation (is Christ a full revelation of God, or somehow imperfect?), the nature of the God-world relationship (is the created world, particularly humanity, capable of being the flesh of God, or are God and creation not fully compatible?), and so on. All of these sorts of issues were at stake in the debates surrounding Nicaea.

Also, I think you misunderstanding the role of politics in the Council. Is it true that "orthodoxy" is to some extent the creation of Byzantine politics? Yes. But the specific shape of Trinitarian orthodoxy was not determined by political expediency. It's probably helpful to remember that the most ardent defender of imperial absolutism involved in the Trinitarian debates, Constantine's own biographer, Eusebius, was not a Nicene; he was a subordinationist, and his political theology is closely intertwined with his subordinationism. Constantine didn't need the Trinity to bolster his rule; he already had a subordinationist who was eager to do it for him.

Also, the "oneness" of God was assumed by everyone in the debates. Everybody thought that God was one; the question was whether the Son and Spirit were in any way identical with the one God.

Now, disbelieving this doesn't make you not a Christian. It doesn't mean you're cut off from God's saving grace. But it does mean that your Christian theology would have to end up looking very different from mainstream Christian theology, and your stance on some very important issues, like the nature of salvation, would have to change as a result. That's, essentially, why it's a big deal. The Trinity really isn't optional if one is a Christian in a classical sense (Catholic, Orthodox, most traditional Protestantisms). It's at the very core of the whole religion and impacts basically everything else that we say about God and about the world in relation to God.

[–]jon12343[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

One, I disagree . If Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and is a separate and distinct entity from God the Father, then the critical part is maintained: the divine sacrifice required by OT sacrificial requirements, and the establishment of the atonement.

There is still only one God. Monotheism remains intact. For those who participate in the Godhead, its that 'begotten' portion that makes the same connection with God - and they are in perfect harmony.

In either case, you find a different method of reaching the same conclusion - there are three aspects and in both cases they are separate. In the Trinity, they are nevertheless the the same being anyway. In the Godhead, they are in absolutely perfect harmony. It seems a point of semantic emphasis when you get down into it.

If the Son of God, in perfect harmony with the Father, who is sharing his experiences, retains his knowledge of divinity and its nature, comes to Earth and is sacrificed ... vs. the Son of God, who is also God, and also the Holy Spirit, who comes to Earth, retains his divine knowledge and is sacrificed ...

What it really reminds me of is the logical problem of blind men and the elephant. If two blind men are asked to describe an elephant by touch, the one who describes the front of the elephant and the one who describes the rear of he elephant are going to produce two very different accounts. Neither however, is going to be inaccurate.

So when you say there is a huge theological implication? Its clear in either case that the involvement of Jesus in the affairs of man is a divine event. How much we emphasize the difference of the three aspects (which even the Trinity concedes is there amidst the oneness) or how much we emphasize the the perfect harmony (which strongly implies oneness) is ... superfluous IMHO, to the reality of WHY there are three aspects and how we can, and indeed should, be interacting with them. For example, as I keep coming back to, the Holy Spirit give us our testimony, it is the cover of truth - that truth ultimately flows from Heavenly Father, no matter how you skin the cat on this one.

That was the case 1700 years ago at Nicaea. That politics drove the solution of the issue has little to do with Constantine or Eusebius. Eusebius, the great chronicler, is why we know (or are at least able to verify) many early Christian accounts. The Arianist controversy, erupted because Arius was openly preaching doctrine that ran afoul of the Bishop of Alexandria. THAT is an inherently political activity. There are tensions political revealed in a this matter going to the level that it did for solution, and what is solved along with the question theological is the one authoritative. Who is qualified to teach about Christ? To set the lesson plan for Christ? That was as much a part of the debate as the theological issue.

I will say that the practical and temporal matter was at a critical cross roads at the First Council of Nicaea. As a matter of practicality, a decision HAD to be made on the theological issue to move forward. It happened to be this issue, but there are any number of theological issues that needed to be settled to establish the Canon and enforce its rigorous teaching to dispel genuine heretical views. We are no longer in that same context.

IMHO, instead of kicking people out or attempting to deny them Christ over the Trinity, we acknowledge that the issue, even then, was not solved because God revealed to us the divine truth or answer - but was solved by an inherently fallible man, for reasons both theological and practical.

The correct teaching, again IMHO, would be to teaching in a way that acknowledges this, its history, and the great complexity of the issue. It would be, essentially, "This is the doctrinal view of the issue, the Trinity, which has long held a place of primacy in most churches, and is X. However, there are some who also believe in the Godhead, which is Y. What is REALLY important however, is to understand, which we ALL agree on, what these three aspects do. The intercession of Christ on our behalf is critical in the repentance process regardless of your opinion on the Trinity, for example."

I will say, from a student's perspective, I appreciate aspects (no pun intended) of both sides of the argument. As a massive history geek, I can place myself into the context of the Nicaean Council, and would have clearly and cleanly sided with the Trinitarians. IT is however, precisely because I understand that temporal politics though, and how these effect what would have been my decision then, that causes me to step back and ask, "Does that equate to irrefutable doctrine? One so irrefutable that it defines who is and who is not Christian?"

For me, that answer is a solid, "No." I have met too many good followers of Christ who believe in the Godhead, or some version thereof, who are earnestly and honestly seeking Christ and I see a Christian before me.

Again, our doctrine is important, but the Trinity is a induction from the teaching of Christ. It is, IMHO, of pale importance to issues such as the introduction of the higher law and the gift of grace and the atonement.

If the Trinity were really as central as we say, then I daresay that Mark 30-31 would contain some reference to the Trinity and ensuring it was correct. Instead we get, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these."

Someone who believes in the Godhead, just like Arius did centuries ago, is within those two great commandments. The difference now is that we have a well developed and supported doctrine, we have institutions (a great many) to define doctrinal issues for us. Had certain Protestant churches existed in the age of Arius, he could have simply joined them. They did not.

The Canon, however, which emerged from that Council was necessary. Regardless of the interpretation of the Trinity, all Christians today use basically the same Bible as the foundation of their teaching. That is the key take away from Niceae. That it must nevertheless all be interpreted the same way is not.

[–]Eastern OrthodoxPinkfish_411 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

If Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and is a separate and distinct entity from God the Father, then the critical part is maintained: the divine sacrifice required by OT sacrificial requirements, and the establishment of the atonement.

Well, for one thing, a very large chunk of the Christian tradition--including the people at Nicaea--simply did not think that was "the critical part." This is because salvation is not simply a matter of forgiveness of sins, but of union between the divine and the human, and that union occurs in the body of Jesus Christ. Through baptism and eucharist we become the body of Christ, which is God's own body, and through that we are taken up into the life of the eternal God. That is the basic sort of salvation that people at Nicaea wanted to preserve.

(Although, even if one takes to something closer to a "forgiveness" model, it's not clear that what's important is preserved if Jesus isn't God. See, for instance, Anselm's Cur Deus Homo.)

In either case, you find a different method of reaching the same conclusion

No, you simply don't reach the same conclusion. You don't reach anything close to the same conclusion. Again, if Jesus Christ is fully God, then God became flesh; if he isn't fully God, then God didn't become flesh. Those are very different conclusions, and the former is regarded by the bulk of the world's Christians as the defining feature of Christian orthodoxy. Quite simply, a person is preaching a different religion if they aren't preaching God in the flesh. This is not, in any sense, a merely semantic dispute.

Or maybe it is semantic, I don't know, because I honestly can't discern what your own position is. But it certainly doesn't seem like the Arianism that was rejected at the councils.

Neither however, is going to be inaccurate.

Well, one is inaccurate in this case, because either Christ is fully God or not fully God. Only one of them is correct.

Its clear in either case that the involvement of Jesus in the affairs of man is a divine event.

"A divine event" is not necessarily the same thing as God becoming flesh, which is what orthodox theology stands on. There are many divine events in salvation history, but the incarnation is a unique one in that God personally enters into creation's history as a creature.

How much we emphasize the difference of the three aspects (which even the Trinity concedes is there amidst the oneness)

Trinitarianism doesn't "concede" difference in God. Difference in God is absolutely central to a Trinitarian conception.

superfluous IMHO, to the reality of WHY there are three aspects and how we can, and indeed should, be interacting with them.

It certainly isn't. We are supposed to worship Jesus Christ as God, as the Lord of Creation. If he's not fully God, and we worship him as such, we're committing idolatry.

instead of kicking people out or attempting to deny them Christ over the Trinity

Who is doing this? People being kicked out of their churches for not believing in the Trinity certainly isn't a widespread issue.

Someone who believes in the Godhead, just like Arius did centuries ago

I'm not convinced that you understand Arius' theology.

Regardless of the interpretation of the Trinity, all Christians today use basically the same Bible as the foundation of their teaching. That is the key take away from Niceae.

Are you suggesting that the biblical canon was decided at Nicaea? Oh brother... No. It wasn't. And that's not even close to the "key take away" from Nicaea. The key take-away from Nicaea is that Arius' position would destroy the whole Christian religion and so had to be declared anathema.

[–]jon12343[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

One, please don't tell me that I don't understand Arius and the controversy if I am the one introducing it. Its rather obscure, and if some is taking the time to reference the practice and arguments and is linking them to the modern question by specifically demonstrating the difference in context ... then telling me that, IYO, I don't know what the hell I am talking about is kind of offensive.

In fact, it demonstrates exactly the spirit of the issue that makes me cringe - a demand for similar thinking rather than a reverence for Christ.

Was Arius not a Christian? Because that is the central point of my argument. That one disagrees with his teachings, or finds some measure of validity in them, does not determine whether that person understand them. If you think they are wrong, you are certainly free to express your opinion as to why, but do not assume that a person who leans in the middle is necessarily ignorant.

That being said, the arguments for both the Trinity and the Godhead present Jesus as divine. Period. The only begotten Son of the Father, in PERFECT harmony with the Father taps into the divine as succinctly as Jesus being the literal incarnate of Heavenly Father ... who nevertheless remains separate and in heaven. Divine blood is needed for the atonement, period.

To deny that this occurred because you disagree over the interpretation of the Trinity is to fundamentally miss the point. Those who believe in the Godhead believe that Jesus is divine and insuperable for God. In perfect harmony.

And yes brother, it is a widespread issue. When you have various Christian leaders openly claiming that others are not Christian over matters doctrinal ... I suggest you check out CARM, which castigated even Roman Catholics as non-Christian.

Doctrine is important. But what it is and is not important for should be acknowledged. Doctrine defines things in a way that establishes a point of conformity and instruction. So we teach the Trinity to introduce Christians to the three aspects and answer the question of monotheism. How can there be one God if there are ... three. Making them all one is one way of addressing them. Making them distinct and two of the three being subordinate to the Father is another. In either interpretation, you are still reaching into the divine. The BEGOTTEN Son of God ... a Son cut of the very material of God himself. A singular and unique creation and manifestation of God. Neither a trinitarian of a follower of the Godhead would disagree with any of that.

Its different but the same vs. its different but OF the same.

Not really the tremendous difference of opinion that requires one to through his fellow Christian under a bus is it?

Are you actually claiming that the Nicenen Council had no impact on the development of the Canon? On establishing the authority that would allow for the 'definitive' Canon? Oh brother indeed.

In the end here, and the problem that I have with the exclusionary interpretation of the Trinity, is that it misses a key point of Christianity and Christ: we were not all created to be the same thing. We are supposed to be diverse.

And again, if its as important as you say, central, rising above all else, then why did Jesus not list the Trinity as one of his two commandments? Love God and Love thy neighbor as yourself.

It does not say, "Establish uniform opinion on doctrine above all else."

And that is the key point here. I begrudge no man who fully accepts the Trinity, but I begrudge no man who believes in the Godhead instead.

Both love God with all their heart and mind, and both treat their neighbors as they would themselves.

The simple fact of the matter is when you walk into a church that practices the God head, you actually see far less idoltry than you do in those that rigidly adhere to the Trinity. To essentially say that the issue is that the one interpretation is heresy in this day in age?

Te various authorities of the churches are established. To be saying anything other than, "I disagree on that particular point of theology," is unwarranted in the current situation.

We are bound no more by the decisions made in Niceae 1700 years ago then we are bound by interpretations from the period that justified slavery. That the equality of all men before God required a shift in temporal power and economics to find fertile ground to ply is self evident. Now, that debate is so fully won, that no man dares to attempt to justify the scourge of slavery with the Bible anymore.

In the meantime, the question of the Godhead and the Trinity remains. It serves as the basis for the very public denunciations of men as 'non-Christian', and that ... strikes me as ... 'un-Christian'.

Uniformity of thought in all things is not what Christ desires. We are here to learn and grow, and the Hegelian dialectic works ... if it is used. Thesis and Antithesis works. If at the end of that process one is full on Trinitarian, good for them - and they now have a powerful understanding of that portion of their faith, the same goes for those who emerge with the similar teaching of the Godhead.

If, however, you examine both sides and declare the issue agnostic, as in both sides can make a relevant case that is not explicitly answered in the Bible ... well, that allows for the inclusion of dissent under the tent of Christ - and that is what is missing when we caste or brothers out for a matter of supportable doctrinal difference.

Doctrine can unify, but it can also tear apart. As a young man I dated a woman whose father's insistence on a particular doctrinal interpretation (in this case how involved music should be in the service) rip the congregation apart.

If we demand doctrinal adherence despite legitimate dissent, then we are misusing the role of doctrine - and the result is, as seen with those who deny the Christianity of others, tearing us apart as the body Christ.

Perhaps that is why Heavenly Father did not answer the question by explicitly spelling out the Trinity in the Bible. Perhaps he wanted us to learn and explore more than conform?

[–]jon12343[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

One, please don't tell me that I don't understand Arius and the controversy if I am the one introducing it. Its rather obscure, and if some is taking the time to reference the practice and arguments and is linking them to the modern question by specifically demonstrating the difference in context ... then telling me that, IYO, I don't know what the hell I am talking about is kind of offensive.

In fact, it demonstrates exactly the spirit of the issue that makes me cringe - a demand for similar thinking rather than a reverence for Christ.

Was Arius not a Christian? Because that is the central point of my argument. That one disagrees with his teachings, or finds some measure of validity in them, does not determine whether that person understand them. If you think they are wrong, you are certainly free to express your opinion as to why, but do not assume that a person who leans in the middle is necessarily ignorant.

That being said, the arguments for both the Trinity and the Godhead present Jesus as divine. Period. The only begotten Son of the Father, in PERFECT harmony with the Father taps into the divine as succinctly as Jesus being the literal incarnate of Heavenly Father ... who nevertheless remains separate and in heaven. Divine blood is needed for the atonement, period.

To deny that this occurred because you disagree over the interpretation of the Trinity is to fundamentally miss the point. Those who believe in the Godhead believe that Jesus is divine and insuperable for God. In perfect harmony.

And yes brother, it is a widespread issue. When you have various Christian leaders openly claiming that others are not Christian over matters doctrinal ... I suggest you check out CARM, which castigated even Roman Catholics as non-Christian.

Doctrine is important. But what it is and is not important for should be acknowledged. Doctrine defines things in a way that establishes a point of conformity and instruction. So we teach the Trinity to introduce Christians to the three aspects and answer the question of monotheism. How can there be one God if there are ... three. Making them all one is one way of addressing them. Making them distinct and two of the three being subordinate to the Father is another. In either interpretation, you are still reaching into the divine. The BEGOTTEN Son of God ... a Son cut of the very material of God himself. A singular and unique creation and manifestation of God. Neither a trinitarian of a follower of the Godhead would disagree with any of that.

Its different but the same vs. its different but OF the same.

Not really the tremendous difference of opinion that requires one to through his fellow Christian under a bus is it?

Are you actually claiming that the Nicenen Council had no impact on the development of the Canon? On establishing the authority that would allow for the 'definitive' Canon? Oh brother indeed.

In the end here, and the problem that I have with the exclusionary interpretation of the Trinity, is that it misses a key point of Christianity and Christ: we were not all created to be the same thing. We are supposed to be diverse.

And again, if its as important as you say, central, rising above all else, then why did Jesus not list the Trinity as one of his two commandments? Love God and Love thy neighbor as yourself.

It does not say, "Establish uniform opinion on doctrine above all else."

And that is the key point here. I begrudge no man who fully accepts the Trinity, but I begrudge no man who believes in the Godhead instead.

Both love God with all their heart and mind, and both treat their neighbors as they would themselves.

The simple fact of the matter is when you walk into a church that practices the God head, you actually see far less idoltry than you do in those that rigidly adhere to the Trinity. To essentially say that the issue is that the one interpretation is heresy in this day in age?

Te various authorities of the churches are established. To be saying anything other than, "I disagree on that particular point of theology," is unwarranted in the current situation.

We are bound no more by the decisions made in Niceae 1700 years ago then we are bound by interpretations from the period that justified slavery. That the equality of all men before God required a shift in temporal power and economics to find fertile ground to ply is self evident. Now, that debate is so fully won, that no man dares to attempt to justify the scourge of slavery with the Bible anymore.

In the meantime, the question of the Godhead and the Trinity remains. It serves as the basis for the very public denunciations of men as 'non-Christian', and that ... strikes me as ... 'un-Christian'.

Uniformity of thought in all things is not what Christ desires. We are here to learn and grow, and the Hegelian dialectic works ... if it is used. Thesis and Antithesis works. If at the end of that process one is full on Trinitarian, good for them - and they now have a powerful understanding of that portion of their faith, the same goes for those who emerge with the similar teaching of the Godhead.

If, however, you examine both sides and declare the issue agnostic, as in both sides can make a relevant case that is not explicitly answered in the Bible ... well, that allows for the inclusion of dissent under the tent of Christ - and that is what is missing when we caste or brothers out for a matter of supportable doctrinal difference.

Doctrine can unify, but it can also tear apart. As a young man I dated a woman whose father's insistence on a particular doctrinal interpretation (in this case how involved music should be in the service) rip the congregation apart.

If we demand doctrinal adherence despite legitimate dissent, then we are misusing the role of doctrine - and the result is, as seen with those who deny the Christianity of others, tearing us apart as the body Christ.

Perhaps that is why Heavenly Father did not answer the question by explicitly spelling out the Trinity in the Bible. Perhaps he wanted us to learn and explore more than conform?

[–]Eastern OrthodoxPinkfish_411 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

One, please don't tell me that I don't understand Arius and the controversy if I am the one introducing it.

People reference Arius and the Nicaea all the time without fully understanding the issues behind them. It's not particularly obscure; it's one of the most common things that people mention from Christian history, and one of the most common they get wrong. In this case, from what you've written so far, I simply don't get the impression that you actually understand the major issues that were at stake in the controversy.

Was Arius not a Christian? Because that is the central point of my argument.

Yes, Arius was a Christian. If that's the central idea of your argument, I don't know what you're arguing about. There are heterodox Christians, and Arius was one of them.

The only begotten Son of the Father, in PERFECT harmony with the Father taps into the divine as succinctly as Jesus being the literal incarnate of Heavenly Father

Wait...which of those do you think describes Nicene Trinitarianism? That Jesus is in some way the incarnation of the Father? I don't know what you're suggesting.

When you have various Christian leaders openly claiming that others are not Christian over matters doctrinal ... I suggest you check out CARM, which castigated even Roman Catholics as non-Christian.

As far as I know, the guy who runs CARM is not a church leader and has no power to expel anyone from the Christian community.

As for folks like, say, Mormons, then they aren't part of the Christian community to begin with. The movement is based on a rejection of historic Christianity based in the claim of a new divine revelation. It's Christian-based religion, but it isn't Christianity any more than Christianity is Judaism.

How can there be one God if there are ... three. Making them all one is one way of addressing them. Making them distinct and two of the three being subordinate to the Father is another.

Let's just be clear: Trinitarianism makes them the same at the level of substance but hypostatically distinct, and can even make the Son and Spirit "subordinate" to the Father within intra-Trinitarian relations. What it denies is ontological subordination. If there's ontological subordination or division of substance, then you end up with something altogether different, not just a semantic difference.

Are you actually claiming that the Nicenen Council had no impact on the development of the Canon?

On the biblical canon? No, it didn't. This is one of the popular myths about Nicaea, but no historian of the council accepts it. There's simply no real evidence that the canon was a topic of the council. A real "history geek" should know this, because you can get this much by doing as little as reading the Wikipedia page.

In the end here, and the problem that I have with the exclusionary interpretation of the Trinity, is that it misses a key point of Christianity and Christ: we were not all created to be the same thing. We are supposed to be diverse.

That's what you take away from Christianity as the "key point"? That's simply not the key point behind Christianity according to any established Christian theological tradition.

And again, if its as important as you say, central, rising above all else, then why did Jesus not list the Trinity as one of his two commandments? Love God and Love thy neighbor as yourself.

For one thing, I never claimed that it "rises above all else." I said that it's foundational to orthodox Christian theology, and it is. The very idea of orthodoxy is bound up with the Trinity, and all post-Nicene patristic theology is thoroughly Trinitarian.

You're attacking a strawman.

The simple fact of the matter is when you walk into a church that practices the God head, you actually see far less idoltry than you do in those that rigidly adhere to the Trinity.

I'm going to call bs on that. Where's the rampant idolatry in Trinitarian churches?

Te various authorities of the churches are established. To be saying anything other than, "I disagree on that particular point of theology," is unwarranted in the current situation.

The role of the authorities of the Church is the same as it's ever been: the protection of right belief and practice, to begin with. It's just as appropriate as ever to denounce anti-Trinitarianism as heterodox, because it is heterodox.

If we demand doctrinal adherence despite legitimate dissent

The dissent's not legitimate though. Non-Trinitarian Christian theology is almost invariably bad Christian theology, post Nicaea. The "Hegelian dialectic" worked, and we got to a point where going back on the product of that dialectic is no longer a legitimate Christian move.

[–]jon12343[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Again, you are making incompatible claims.

a. The claims that I am making are 'common', but, obviously, not well understood ... by me. (I don't see too many other people talking about them).

b. Arius cannot be Christian is the Trinity is central to Christianity.

That is EXACTLY the point that is driving many Evengelical leaders to condemn all denominations that do not accept the Trinity, they, like their contemporary peers, would exit all those who disagree.

Well, Arius did not have the option we have today - found your own church. Now that those who disagree about the Trinity have done so, and with tremendous overlap between the denominations on other issues, does it even make sense to use the Trinity as the basis of declaring another 'not Christian'?

[–]Eastern OrthodoxPinkfish_411 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

The claims that I am making are 'common', but, obviously, not well understood

What's "incompatible" there? A ton of people reference Nicaea but don't really understand what happened at Nicaea all that well. It seems entirely possible to me that a lot of people might have a superficial understanding of something.

Arius cannot be Christian is the Trinity is central to Christianity.

I said Arius was a Christian, and that the Trinity is central to good Christian theology. Where's the incompatibility? Arius was a Christian whose theology was declared heterodox. Simply having a heterodox theology doesn't necessarily make one not a Christian. It makes one heterodox.

does it even make sense to use the Trinity as the basis of declaring another 'not Christian'?

It makes perfect sense to declare churches that reject the Trinity of being heterodox, yes. It makes perfect sense to refuse full communion with them, yes. It makes as much sense now as it ever did.

[–]jon12343[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well, than you have not understood my argument.

If the Trinity is central, in fact defining of Christianity, then Arius is not a Christian (and there are plenty of people out there that are openly preaching this.)

What I am saying is that the defining features in this point of doctrine is that of the three aspects, and, importantly, how to interact with them in grow in your relationship with ... Christ.

In short, the Trinity is a teaching tool it is not a central tenet of Christianity that is so central and binding that is define's whether or not someone is 'Christian' - thought it may well define their denomination.

And calling them heterodox ... no one does that anymore BTW ... would be wrong. Those who support the Godhead, are Arius did (and much more so today), use scripture to back up their claims. I the churches that have been established with this point of view, it is very much orthodox - official teaching.

Ergo, as Christians we can ether tear ourselves apart by quibbling over the amount of distinctness and separation, or we can pull each other together and acknowledge the shared lineage and acceptance of the there aspects and encourage one another to seek their guidance and counsel as appropriate.

[–]Eastern OrthodoxPinkfish_411 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

If the Trinity is central, in fact defining of Christianity, then Arius is not a Christian

If adherence to the Trinity defines one's personal status as a Christian, then sure. But this is not what I've said at any point. I've said that Christianity is central to Christian theology. Having a perfect theology is not necessary for one to be a Christian.

And calling them heterodox ... no one does that anymore BTW

What? The denominations that represent the vast majority of Christians in the world absolutely call non-Trinitarianism heterodox. You don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.

Those who support the Godhead, are Arius did

No, once again, you don't seem to understand Arius...at all. Arius did not teach anything along the lines of this "Godhead" theology as you've been describing it.

...use scripture to back up their claims

So did Christian proponents of chattel slavery. Using the Bible doesn't mean that one's position is correct.

[–]jon12343[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

To whomever is down voting my submissions, please come out of the shadows and have the nerve to face me like an adult. Thank you!

[–]LDS (Mormon)TheWhiteSpark 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree with you completely, focusing on this argument detracts from our ability (or desire) to work with other believers towards good things. At the worst it causes hostility and anger between groups of good people who would otherwise accomplish greater good together.

I am biased in this discussion though, because members of my faith are often told we're not Christian because we don't adhere to the Nicene creed or the same idea of the Trinity or Godhead as many other denominations.

[–]Atheistgaltonwatson -1ポイント0ポイント  (19子コメント)

Today however, I am trying to figure out why this remains a big deal ... at all? Whether the three aspects are different aspects of the same being or separate aspects under the control of Heavenly Father seems, for lack of a better term, semantical? <...> What is really important, and what seems to cross all denominations is wha the three aspects do and how we interact with them.

From a cynical perspective, part of the problem is that if aspects are defined by appearances ("aspect" in its roots meaning "to look at") and how we interact with them, then God's bits begin to multiply without end. If Jesus isn't a real, permanently differentiable thing, then we can paste on God anything that fits these criteria (it's divine, this is how it appears to me) and some time later God is Shiva just as much as he's Jesus. And why not? If Jesus is how we see God, and Shiva is how they interpret their interactions with God...

It's similar to the question of the canon - if we don't clamp down on what's accepted, if "the Bible" is vaguely defined as any communication from God, then claimants come forward with their visions and texts, and soon the Christian canon is the Buddhist canon. Which is to say, maybe it's the Pali canon or maybe it's the Sanskrit or Chinese canon, and maybe this guy over here who had a vision of Avalokiteshvara is just as authoritative as the guy who actually sat by the Buddha's feet.

So maybe it doesn't play a role in your daily spiritual life, but that's because it's been slowly exerting its influence over those 1700 years. If the constraints on orthodoxy were relaxed, you wouldn't notice any immediate effect. I personally believe most Trinitarians actually aren't Trinitarians, and they seem to do fine. But over time you'd start to see divinity bleeding into other aspects, and the three would become four or more, and God would keep branching out no matter how quickly you pruned. Eventually, you're sitting with a monist God.

So one practical implication of making these distinctions real is that they stay pinned down. Edit: Just as a thought experiment, how do we prevent Bob, who claims to be as divine as Jesus, from speaking with the same authority as Jesus? If we're just dealing with aspects, how do we insist that the aspects are only three and that Bob is a fake? (The answer, I believe, is that we can't. Religions in which God is free to put on any aspects he pleases are just full of avatars.)

[–]jon12343[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

The problem is that the Trinity states that they are all distinct and separate beings who are nevertheless the same being. The 'Shiva' argument does not work here. Regardless of whether you follow the Godhead or the Trinity, the practical effect is the same thing: Three aspects, and how you interact and grow in your relationship with Christ.

Whether they wholly separate or merely separate for purposes of interaction is a distinction that is ... unimportant in all practical or temporal manners. The three aspects are listed precisely because these are the aspects that allow you to address aspects of YOUR relationship with Christ to.

There is simply no way, unless you completely abandon all doctrine completely, that Shiva could winnow his way into the relationship process. In fact, the word 'Trinity' is not in the Bible. This is what flowed from Nicaea, a decision made by man. In that case, I very much agree with you. The Church had been persecuted from hundreds of years, and was, even then, undergoing a process to winnowing out the obvious forgeries (gnostic gospels) and setting the authenticity of Christ. Very important, and very practical reasons when you are under sustained persecution (even if its close to ending).

The context has shifted. Just as dietary recommendations, like eating Sea food or pork, made perfect sense when contemporary food sanitation (or lack thereof) made these ingredients very dangerous to consume. Now? Context is different and we can eat these things quite safely.

I think there is much need to be focused on it, save that it is CRITICALLY important to understand how these aspects interact with one another.

As for the question about Bob, the ability to spot a true Christian is not that hard. Obviously, Bob would require some mastery of theology, etc. That is precisely why the Canon was created.

What the Canon CAN support is the three aspects. What it cannot definitively support is whether those three aspects are distinct but part of the whole or whether they are distinctly separate spiritual beings. (Its why we have adherents to both sides of the issue, each, in many cases, using the same theological citations to support their claim.)

If we are using the 'Trinity' or the 'Godhead' to say that one side or the other is not Christian? I think we are missing the boat.

The Arianism controversy in Nicaea took an issue of ... well, not terribly important, and made the results of the sudden rupture a matter of critical TEMPORAL importance. The church had to define a way ahead, and, I understand that a a history geek.

1700 years later, what I don't get as a Christian is why we are taking the results of that fight and using it as the basis of trying to kick people out from under the tent of Christ. It's at best, minutia.

At worst, it overshadows the critical reasons that the three aspects are in scripture:

a. Do I have a strong testimony?

b. Am following the repentance process to build myself into a more Christ like human beings?

c. Am following the will of the Father?

Godhead or Trinity? Who cares as long as you are interacting with it in a way that build up spiritually?

At least that is how I see it ... and I fully acknowledge that I could be wrong. It just rubs some part of me the wrong way when I hear church leaders (of many denominations) attempt to say another denomination is not really Christian over ... the Trinity.

Now, if they say, "You are not really Christian because you are following Bob or Shiva in a way that is decidedly unChrist like," I would tend to agree ;-)

[–]Eastern Orthodox (OCA)pm_me_creative_names 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

1700 years later, what I don't get as a Christian is why we are taking the results of that fight and using it as the basis of trying to kick people out from under the tent of Christ. It's at best, minutia.

Because our understanding of soteriology is vastly different depending on whether Jesus is God, whether Jesus is Man, and whether God is just Jesus, or if God is Trinitarian. The Orthodox Christian soteriology doesn't function without a Trinity. God became man so that might become god, St. Athanasius the Great.

[–]jon12343[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

What stops functioning? Jesus is, no matter what, the only begotten Son of God, and his gift of grace is there. We still take the sacrament. We still seek repentance and forgiveness, and its still dispensed in doses of justice and mercy through the Father.

That churches that do not have the Trinity function just fine would seem to invalidate the claim that the church could to function without the Trinity. (It certainly could not function without the three aspects, but distinct of the same, it has no practical effect on what those three aspects bring to the Christian). A church with Christ is a good church.

I will also say, I suspect one of the reasons we are here is to learn. One of the ways to learn is to explore thesis and anti-thesis, the Hegelian dialectic. I suspect there is an aspect in the debate that is teaching to the teachable.

I will also say, why the doctrinal question pales into importance of simple pragmatism, is the reality of what genuine forgiveness reaps on us all. To see the burden lifted from those struck down by terrible burdens of guilt is ... amazing. The tangible and very real effects of forgiveness and repentance, that great lesson for us, is ... wonderful.

I again, just don't see why the three in one or three trumps the reality of what the three or three in one bring to humanity?

[–]Eastern Orthodox (OCA)pm_me_creative_names 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

We could have the same form, yes. We could say the same words and perform the same rituals. A group of modern atheists could get together, build a modern Orthodox Christian church building, and perform a Divine Liturgy without believing anything they're doing.

But you miss something here, when you ask "what stops functioning, and start talking about ritual." I wasnMt talking about the sacraments, nor the ritual. I was talking about Theosis. I don't believe that the Orthodox Christian interpretation works without the Trinity.

Furthermore, I think that we must know what we teach about God so that we can teach it. Religion is more than just Moral Therapitic Deism. It's not just about doing and feeling good. You can be an atheist and do good. You can be an atheist and feel good.

So, in the end, I don't know what you're asking. You seem to be setting the doctrinal teachings of a religion in opposition to it's moral teachings, and I don't know why.

[–]jon12343[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

That is the point. The Trinity is 'supported' by scripture but is not explicitly spelled out in scripture. Same for the opposing view here.

The questions isn't why a specific church has decided one way or the other, its what is driving that decision to be so exclusionary that you would publicly caste someone out from the cloth of Christ (not orthodoxy).

Again, 1700 years ago, consensus was needed o move the church forward. Enforced conformity was badly needed when the gnostic gospels and other fas teachings cried our for clarity. The Canon gave us that. The interpretations that rise from the Canon, however, are clearly not universal (nor do I believe that a scripture that teaches contextual wisdom would intend it that way).

So where do we draw the line?

Are ... Orthodox Christians .. Christian? Catholics? Protestants? Anglicans? Copts? Methodists? Jehovah's witnesses? Mormons? etc.

If the difference is as minor as Trinity vs. Godhead? IMHO, that is putting the letter of the law ahead of the spirit of Christ.

I will say this though, in the information age, people get to examine the what and why in a way that geographically pre-technological societies could not. If the orthodox, or any other, church defines itself on a doctrine that cannot justify the exclusionary policy ... then it will not be successful over the long haul.

Its the spirit of, "I believe I am right, but I understand the aspects of the Bible that others reasonably disagree with," and, "I am right, and you are wrong ... and have no place here beside Christ."

There are times and points where that is necessary, and certainly, the context 1700 years ago, that unity of effort was necessary to lift the gospel out of the fog of confusion then in effect. Now?

I am not sure its worth the schism if you will?

[–]Eastern Orthodox (OCA)pm_me_creative_names 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

So, what are you asking? Why do Churches say they are the true church over matters of doctrine?

[–]jon12343[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Nope, I am asking why they say they are 'Christian' but other 'Christians' are not based on the Trinity.

ALL Christian churches, even Jehovah's Witnesses, accept the three aspects of God as revealed in scripture.

Its a matter of delineation between, "I disagree," and, "They are definitively wrong."

When the basic point is not explicit to scripture and based on inductive reasoning, that would be, IMHO, unwarranted certainty.

Its not a matter of right or wrong, but, as the Romans say, Primus Inter Peres - or first among equals. Anglicans and Presbyterians are 'equals' in terms of Christianity, but they have their points of difference as well - hence they are different denominations.

It is again, that desire to take a inductive (albeit well supported) element of theology and demanding adherence to it rather than acknowledgement of it.

To say, "that interpretation is not Orthodox or Catholic," is one thing, but Christianity is the term that encompasses all who honestly and earnestly follow Christ. If what they believe can be supported by scripture ... disagreement is one thing, but utter disregard is another all together.

We are, regardless of denomination - we have God's Plan of Salvation, and that means Heavenly Father created all this for us. For us to be given the chance to learn.

The diversity of opinion about inductive claims in scripture is there for a reason. As I state, its not 1700 years ago. The exploration of the Trinity vs. Godhead will familiarize anyone with the aspects of God, it will improve his or her relationship with Christ ... it exists for a reason beyond conformity of opinion.

At the end of the exploration, the case for Christ is immensely strengthened.

So it strikes me as ... wrongheaded ... to see someone deny them their Christianity based on the Trinity.

[–]Eastern Orthodox (OCA)pm_me_creative_names 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Well, we, or at least I, don't deny people Christianity based on their interpretations I see as incorrect. I deny them orthodoxy, with a small 'o.' They're heterodox, believing something other than what the Church has taught for many hundreds of years.

Also, the Romans don't say primus inter pares about the Pope. They say he has full, immediate, supreme, and universal authority.

[–]jon12343[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Which is why many Christians are not Catholics ;-) Myself included.

I appreciate the ability of the Pope to settle doctrinal issues, (there must be some method for doing it), but ... there is clearly a limit to authoritarian approach to solving. That the Trinity issue was at the beginning and is still here today, speaks to the limitations of the ... solution.

That the Trinity is taught and incorporated into the church is a good thing. It brings these aspects squarely into the fold in a way that builds and binds communities. But having long established that firm foundation, its a foundation strong enough and inclusive enough to bring in dissenting opinions - with the caveat that they are not doctrinal.

As simply as I can say this, the Pope's once tried to enforce orthodoxy through excommunications, etc. That is why we have a Protestant movement today.

I strikes me as a little off that there are still some filling that same leadership role for their churches in a less than inclusive manner. There is a dissenting position within the church vs. they are definitively wrong - so much so that they are not Christian.

Its the later that created the schisms. I guess I just hate to still see that spirit out there today.

[–]Atheistgaltonwatson 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

The 'Shiva' argument does not work here. <...> There is simply no way, unless you completely abandon all doctrine completely, that Shiva could winnow his way into the relationship process.

Are you certain? Because I've seen examples in which this happens; people on the fringe of Christianity do syncretize. Like, all the time. And people of other faiths do the same thing, when the boundaries of divinity are more porous than they are in orthodox Christianity. They don't have to toss out their faith - they just talk about their own experience of God, how they see God, and insist on their own aspects, facets of the one.

As for the question about Bob, the ability to spot a true Christian is not that hard.

I think you're underestimating the difficulty people have had, historically, in doing so. Perhaps you believe it should have been clearer to all involved and that all the disagreements were... what? Stupidity? Blindness? Stubbornness? It took repeated visions from God to some individuals before they understood what God was intending. It took councils and debate to determine what the most basic requirements would be.

I posit that the only reason it's not that hard is because the doctrines did what they were intended to do and you're benefitting from that. So again, it wouldn't have a big effect today if you dropped them, but if they hadn't been there for all this time, Christianity's boundaries would feel entirely different.

I'm skeptical that it's so obvious, because I've been able to watch the evolution of other religions that don't have safeguards on the number of aspects of deity - invariably, the number rises over time. It's not because they toss all doctrine. It's a gradual process of divinity-creep.

The canon can, after all, support more aspects of God than just the three - for example, Wisdom personified has been... well, personified by some people on the edges of Christian thought. They didn't have to completely abandon all doctrine completely, they just said - huh, here's another aspect of God. People who understand theosis in unorthodox ways can paste aspects on God without abandoning the rest of their faith.

Perhaps it's so clear and easy for you, but I suspect this is only because you're not running the scenario through your head of what would have happened had these restrictions not been in place from relatively early days. You seem to believe the difficulties are illusory, but that's not what history demonstrates.

[–]jon12343[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well, let me pitch it too you this way. We should acknowledge the difference between the higher and lower law. The lower law is a rules based approach to morality, i.e. your adherence to the rules is what determines whether you are moral or immoral. For those recently released from captivity, easily swayed to worship a Golden Cafe, adherence to rules is important.

Along comes Jesus and he gives us ... principle bad morality. TH drawback to rule based morality are there.

There is the lawyer problem: (attempt at humor, not scripture), it says that we should not stick our fingers in electrical outlets! It says nothing about sticking them to light sockets ... so we are good!

In reality, the principle of avoiding electrical current in unsafe conditions is the correct view point and allows you to safely ascertain how to get to electrical problems, or to ascertain to take when to take risks ... i.e. there is a high chance of electrical fire and my wife and kids are sound asleep upstairs, I best act now ...

The second issue is just that, wisdom is called on throughout the Bible. But that is applying standards, rules, etc. in the correct context. The punishment for all adultery, as Jesus famously opines, is not always death. Context matters, immensely. As we take the principles of Christ and apply them, we become wise as Solomon in the application of his virtue.

So when oneness is required to define and safeguard the church and message of Christ, that is the wisest path. By far.

When the threat is eliminated, and what is needed is true understanding of Christ then the Hegelian dialectic seems far more appropriate - as in, bring in both sides of the debate and allow honest Christian to make up their own mind. Casting someone outside the grace of Christ under these circumstances would seem to run afoul of the great spirit of our Savior.

As for doctrine, 'aspect' used in relation to God through the Trinity or Godhead is not inductive of any more than three aspects in the sense of a engageable being. Such an interpretation of a fourth aspect would fall outside the doctrinal boundaries of the scripture.

Where wisdom is applied here, IMHO, is about ensuring that we have a healthy relationship with Christ, or if not, that we understand where to go to make it better. That is the true importance of the Trinity.

And if its true, the Holy Spirit will impart that knowledge. The wiser course here is to remember the lessons of the lower law and not get too hung up on doctrine and forget that we are all in a journey with Christ together ... but we are not all at he same point in our journey with Christ.

That is why I cringe when I hear people using the Trinity to castigate other Christians as 'not Christian'.

[–]Atheistgaltonwatson 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Such an interpretation of a fourth aspect would fall outside the doctrinal boundaries of the scripture.

I'm baffled. On one hand, I'm reading "we shouldn't toss people out if they disagree on Godhead vs. Trinity." On the other hand, I'm reading "the number of possible aspects of God is clearly set in stone and anybody who disagrees is too far out there for consideration." You don't feel just a slightest twinge of irony?

The wiser course here is to remember the lessons of the lower law and not get too hung up on doctrine and forget that we are all in a journey with Christ together ... but we are not all at he same point in our journey with Christ.

Of course, I don't believe it's worthwhile to toss people out of communion for disagreements on something as complicated as the Trinity (although, didn't you say it was easy to tell who is who?). If someone is too hung up on doctrine, then by definition they're too hung up on doctrine. No argument there - people can be excessive. I am, however, responding to comments like this:

Whether they wholly separate or merely separate for purposes of interaction is a distinction that is ... unimportant in all practical or temporal manners.

There's a difference between saying "we ought not toss each other out over this," with which I agree, and "both answers are practically and temporally equivalent," with which I can't. I've pointed to several examples in which, when the restrictions of the Trinity are loosened, other aspects rush in. We can just look at other religions to see what the natural course would have been.

Up to this point of disagreement, wisdom reigns and it's best to be nice. But I swear to God, if you see four rather than three...

[–]jon12343[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Let's approach the gospels logically. (Remember I am history geek - a trained history geek actually).

If we assume for matters theological that the Bible is the authoritative source, then that is our basis of evidence for theological conclusions. (On this particular case, the Mormons have additional scripture, but its acceptance outside that one denomination means its not, for this point, authoritative - unless of course you are Mormon).

There are two types of logical reasoning: deductive and inductive. Deductive claims are those that can be definitively proven. Inductive claims are this that are based on some measure of probability. (But could be wrong).

Ergo, when we ask how many aspects, persons (whatever the term) God has given us, the answer is ... three. Not because it was made up out of hat, but because the Bible explicitly and repeatedly states as much.

Ergo, we have a literal and deductive answer to the question from the Bible. Its the same reason we can say that Shiva is not part of the Trinity, because the three aspects are explicitly spelled out, and Shiva is not one of these aspects. Something cannot be both true and false, as a basis premise of logic. So it follows if there are three aspects and those three aspects have been explicitly spelled out, 3 of 3, then there are no other things that can take there place (or the entire thing is falsified).

DO you see any point in scripture that would interpret any other aspects to the Trinity/Godhead other than God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit?

That is how we know there are three and what they are and what they do - we have been explicitly told this. (Conclusion: we can safely and definitively dismiss a fourth or fifth aspect as unChristian because it is unsupportable with scripture, and is in fact directly contradicted by scripture).

Whether these aspects are one or three distinct entities is not explicitly spelled out in scripture. Its an open question. The type of logic we build here is inductive in nature, or probable. If we read it and see the mentions of the aspects ... well, very, very strong cases have been, and continue to be made for the Trinity. The problem? there are also very, very strong cases for the Godhead. So which is right?

Today, that question is largely moot. Its unimportant in most cases, IMHO. 1700 years ago, that context was very different. The floating friction between elements we know universally consider heretical (Secret Mark being an example, or the Gospel of Judas) was alive and well.

The Arianist controversy, over this very matter, was very much, for better or worse, the focal point of a large amount of this tension. The attempt to undermine the authority of the nascent church to bring clarity to the fog of teachings was real - like potentially undermining the Canon serious. (It was not the first attempt to create a Canon, just the first successful one). There was a NEED to settle this question to move the church forward - and so it was.

The question is whether it was 'solved' for reasons political and practical or theological? (I would assume a bit of both, as the argumentation for the Trinity is not exactly weak).

Context changes however, and, for example, we no longer worry about Normans invading England. The conflict 1700 years ago was necessary to set a course that addressed CONTEMPORARY problems. In context, the Trinity and the establishment of a leadership element to clear the fog and set the path is important. Critically so.

Now, however, the context has also changed. I see the calls of exclusion as undermining the reality of why the debate still exists. It excludes and castes out, but the debate between Godhead and Trinity does something for all who examine it ...

It brings them closer to God. It makes them ponder the nature of God. It makes them discern what their relationship with God is and how to interact with Heavenly Father.

In short, the question of leadership is no longer the relevance of this question. This is an intellectual question, IMHO, and one best presented as a thesis and antithesis - decide for yourself one who is seeking God, and not ... Christian vs. non-Christian.

If a man or woman can explain why they believe one way or the other, more power to them ... but if they miss the fact that they receive their testimony from the Holy Spirit, then they have missed the real reason the Trinity (or Godhead) is in scripture.