4 comments so far
Thanks Rob, very cogent post. It’s unfortunate that so many attacks against the Trinity, or criticisms of the same, stem from either misunderstanding or misprepresentation. PJ
Mr. Bowman,
As you are well aware, the Bible is not a systematic theology. There is no book explaining the doctrine of God. Instead, we are given snippets of truth here and there like pieces in a puzzle, and it is up to us to responsibly systematize those pieces together into one whole, coherent doctrine of God. As I see it, Scripture presents three general truths about God all Christians must confess:
1. There is only one God
2. The Father is referred to as (that one) God, the Son is referred to as (that one) God, and the Holy Spirit is referred to as (that one) God
3. Distinctions are made between Father, Son, and Spirit
Many attempts were made in the early centuries of the church to systematize all three of these truths. Most came up short, however, failing to incorporate one or the other of these truths. But the doctrine of the Trinity was able to systematize all three teachings in one coherent picture by affirming God to be three distinct persons subsisting in one divine essence. As a result, it became Christian orthodoxy. But is one required to adopt this model in order to be saved? What if another model was put forth that could affirm all three strands of Biblical data concerning the identity and nature of God, but did not include the notion of three persons in one essence? Never mind for the moment the question of which model would be superior in explanatory scope, and hence which model may be preferred as more closely representing who God is. Should those who adopt a non-Trinitarian model of God be considered heretical, even if they affirm all three strands of the raw Biblical data?
I hope to interact with your opinion on this question by giving you mine. Personally, I don’t think the Trinitarian model of God should be the sine qua non of orthodoxy, yet alone salvation. So long as one’s doctrine of God incorporates all three strands of Biblical truth, they should be considered Christian. Otherwise we are guilty of elevating a non-biblical (as opposed to unbiblical) model of God to an authority status equal to that of Scripture. I think it would be a mistake to elevate a theological model that took believers several centuries to flesh out, to a status more important than the raw data that informed it. The Biblical data itself—not any particular theological model developed from it—ought to be the sine qua non of orthodoxy. As Millard Erickson wrote: “[The Trinity] is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.” (God in Three Persons, 11)
If one cannot be saved by believing the three truths stated earlier, without also adopting the Trinitarian model to explain them, it seems to me that the doctrine of the Trinity—and the conceptual framework/language that goes along with it—is elevated beyond its worth, and we lose the truth-theology distinction. Ultimately, some will be designated “heretics” and “outside the church” unjustly. What are your thoughts on this?
Jason,
I appreciate your thoughtful reply and questions. I have already said that I don’t think that one must necessarily affirm the specific formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. It’s hard to answer your hypothetical question about a new theological model coming along that affirms the basic biblical teachings in a different, non-Trinitarian way. If such a formulation came along, hypothetically speaking, I suppose its adherents could also be saved; that follows from what I have already said. But this is a hypothesis with no examples, at least yet. In nearly 2,000 years, no such alternative model has yet surfaced. Would you agree with me on this point?
If I’m right, in the meantime, we have no alternative model that could be viewed as legitimately or acceptably orthodox. Departure from the only known theological model that affirms all of the essential biblical teachings on the subject must, then, be considered a departure from orthodoxy.
The whole point of orthodoxy is the recognition that Christians should not divide themselves unnecessarily from one another–that they should stand together theologically as much as possible. Your line of reasoning presupposes that the burden here lies entirely on the mainstream orthodox Christian tradition to accommodate itself to innovative theologies that adopt creative alternatives to the historic orthodox model. If someone (hypothetically) comes up with such a creative alternative, the rest of us are supposed to make room for it in the church. Failure to accept the advocates of this (hypothetical) alternative model into the orthodox Christian church is supposedly a divisive act on our part. But does not the innovator bear some responsibility for the division? Isn’t he thumbing his nose at the historic church by claiming that they’ve had it wrong all these centuries and he has the right answer? (Remember, we are agreeing here that the Trinitarian model does justice to the essential biblical teachings; and we are asking about alternative models, not minor nuances or variations on the Trinitarian model.) I would suggest that the theological maverick bears at least some responsibility for the de facto division that his “I did it my way” approach to theology creates.
Hi Rob,
I don’t mean to be flip, but by “Trinity”, do you mean a perichoretic Trinity with each of the persons possessing a distinct mind (center of consciousness), will & emotions, or each of the persons equally sharing the one mind, will & emotions in the Godhead?
Secondly, doesn’t a perichoretic Trinity necessarily infer in some sense that all three persons of the Godhead are incarnate in Jesus since they are co-inherent or mutually indwell each other (interpenetrate)? Thirdly, following that same line of logic, wouldn’t this also suggest that all three persons participated in the suffering of Christ on the Cross since there is involvement by all three, at least functionally?
To be honest, I’ve been trying to get my hands around the doctrine of the Trinity for some years now, but as of yet, I still haven’t been able to explain how Jesus can be just the second person of the Godhead (God the Son) incarnate in the flesh when John 14:6-11 seems, as least on the surface, to teach that Jesus is Himself God the Father incarnate, based on the fact that He Himself said, “..the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works..” ISad to say, but all of the other Scriptures commonly used by the UPCI to teach that Jesus is the Father, are, as far as I’m concerned, taken out of context, including the favorite Isaiah 9:6 & Col. 2:9-10 Scriptures.
One Trackback/Ping
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] This is from my new blog. Feel free to visit. [...]