That might be a non-sequitur, Jason. It could be that ‘it’ cannot be communicated, and that’s all. People of like belief can talk amongst themselves, of course, and share a common vocabulary and be jolly; however, that does not give truth-value to the propositions that are formed using that specialized vocabulary. You see that, yes? And though that group of like-minded individuals has the freedom to look down on, condescend to, and deny entrance to, anyone who might seem to be an unjollifier, (thank you, I’ll be here all week ) it would certainly be ungracious. But it is human nature.
I don’t know as I’ve ever said the concept of the Trinity did not make sense to anyone - my paragraph above shows that I think it is possible. But ‘making sense to me’ does not mean I am then in a position of judgment, condescension, and exclusivity. (I am not accusing you of that, JP, in fact I know your eyes are open and you strive for fairness.)
As to the “self-refuting nonsense” - your foe in that paragraph would be the individual who says that the concept “Trinity” : 1)cannot even possibly make sense to anyone and 2) cannot say that no one has ever understood it and 3) if that individual does say that it cannot make sense and never has, then 4) that individual is either spouting ungrounded assertion or 5) understood enough - to them at least - to say that the doctrine ‘cannot make sense’.
I am not THAT foe. The doctrine CAN make sense - in the following way:
Here is a link to a short 4-min video on retrograde motion. Most of us know this - that, at certain times of the year, planets seem to stop moving against the background of the stars, then go backwards, then start forward again - i.e., retrograde motion. The vid explains it. The rather fascinating explanation, early on in science, was that of the epicycles. Again, the vid.
youtu.be/piBBQTkoQ9c
This is an example of ‘saving the appearances’ - I’ve mentioned this before. The epicycles did in fact MAKE SENSE of a very puzzling, almost contradictory state of affairs - the heavens were supposed to be perfect, perfect circles and everything!! So the epicycles, being their own little perfect circles, at least were circles, and made for an elegant and intellectually satisfying explanation.
So: I believe we are faced with a mystery, a state of affairs, and more than that, with Being Himself, that just blows concepts apart. The best we have been able to do to save most of the appearances - tying together in some manner “I and the Father are One” and also “There is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ” - is to cobble together (sorry, but that is what it seems like to me) a coherent system of propositions that almost ‘saves the appearances’.
I get it. It is a lovely theory that just cannot be explained. I could go much further - but we are not speaking in broadly Aristotelian terminology here - and I’m also agnostic about the efficacy of Aristotelian analysis in helping us either in affirmation or denial of the concept ‘Trinity’ anyway.
Myself - I just kinda refuse to be put into a category on this. I firmly believe the Apostle’s creed as I understand it. And every so often I too get a taste of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, imparted by the Holy Spirit - and while the term “Trinity” does not enter my mind at those times, I am overcome nonetheless, forgetting all about classification and who is ‘right’. I just want to be THERE.
I’m far from trying to write a simple desultory phillipic (S+G fans will get that) -My point comes down to this question: would it be morally or intellectually right to exclude or denounce a confessing Christian, or even in our hearts alone consider her as lesser in faith or knowledge -somehow not seeing ‘OUR truth’ - SIMPLY on the basis of not believing that the case for Trinitarianism has been made? Is THAT the basis of our fellowship, and the basis of our judging the level of knowledge of another believer?