Rodney Thomas of the blog Political Jesus said this the other day:
“I believe in the Trinity, but I don’t feel the need to use the doctrine to beat the heads of others who have difficulty reconciling it with the biblical witness. It’s not as if we can completely grasp God in the first place, and in the second place, the Trinity is a mystery, so humanity is limited in what we can say about it.” (source)
While I do not think we should be doctrinal relativist, nor should we just let things be as they will be, (and I don’t think Rod would say this either) there is something very true about this statement. God is beyond our cognitive categories and linguistic powers. The Trinity is how we have explained how God revealed himself when he has broke into the wold through his saving actions. We are free to ponder what this says of the nature of God, but we should not say it captures God. Even the most orthodox statement (and I do affirm basic Trinitarianism to be such) is still our finite statement.
the archives near Emmaus 
Wow, best post I have read today. Brian you have put into words how I feel about trinitarian theology. Or should I thank Rod? 😉
Oh Mark, you have me to thank but thank me by taking my advice from the quote. 🙂
Questions: If, “God is beyond our cognitive categories and linguistic powers.” How is it that we can speak of him at all? And if we can’t, aren’t Trinitarian and Unitarian conceptions and articulations of God necessarily false? How would these false conceptions and articulations be helpful? Why would we hold them at all?
@Dan: I don’t think many would disagree with the statement that God is beyond our cognitive categories and linguistic powers. I have read passages from people like Athanasius and Gregory where they remind their readers of this. One time a group that denied the divinity of the Spirit appeared to have mocked the Trinity saying that if the Spirit came from the Father, he to would be a son. Athanasius responded by reminding his opponents that every “father” has a “father” and is once a “son”, yet we would not say that God the Father had a “father” because the language we use to refer to God the Father will always, in some sense, fall short of the reality.
I am Trinitarian. I disagree strongly with Unitarian teaching. I think that it is more about being faithful to the mystery and tension created in Scripture than capturing God in a magical doctrine box. Often my debate with my Oneness Pentecostal friends has more to do with their doctrine trying to over synthesize and simplify the doctrine of God rather than realizing what we see from God’s self revelation leads us to awe and worship.
That being said, I do not blame them for struggling with the doctrine of the Trinity. I had struggled with it for many years before making peace with it in the last several. I do not think I was lost when I didn’t affirm the Trinity, nor do I think I didn’t know or love God, I just hadn’t let my own “logical” system that says if God is one he must be absolutely one take a back seat to the apostolic proclamation that God is Father, Son, and Spirit in a way that is more than modalistic doctrine teaches.
Brian,
So what is “basic Trinitarianism”? And just how is that defined?
@ Fr. Robert: The best language for describing the mystery of the Trinity is found in the so-called Athanasian Creed, in my opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed
It is complex enough to preserve the language of Scripture; simple enough to not venture into too complex a rendering of how the internal nature of God exists. What I do not affirm about the creed is the one must affirm it to be saved. But I do see it as capturing basic Trinitarian doctrine.
If the Trinity of God is not soteriological? I don’t know what is!
@ Fr. Robert: Allegiance to Christ as the resurrected Lord!
Brian, which Christ?
@Bobby: Jesus of Nazareth, who God revealed as Lord by resurrecting him from the dead. The one of apostolic proclamation. The one who fulfilled the hopes of Israel as the Messiah. The one who initiated the New Covenant as giver of the Spirit. Is there another?
Brian,
Yes, the Father’s Son, who is the eternally begotten Son of the Father! (John 1:14 ; 18 / Matt. 11:25-27, etc.)
@ Fr. Robert: I agree that this is part of essential orthodoxy today, but this is one of the doctrines upon which the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity is built. Do I think the doctrine of the Trinity gets it right? Yes, but this is not one and the same with saying that the Son is eternally from the Father.
For example, while I think the doctrine of Oneness Pentecostals is wrong, they do not deny the statement you made above. They would affirm the deity of Christ.
@Brian,
No, but my point is simply that we don’t have Jesus from Nazareth w/o the “eternal Logos” or “Son.” I know you know this, and I think this is all Fr Robert was getting at.
@Bobby: I’d agree, that is why I tried to clarify above that it is a bit complicated because some sects deny the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity but they would affirm a form of Logos-doctrine. While I confess Trinitarian dogma, it is not as easy for me to say that I can make a blanket statement on the authenticity of each persons Christianity who struggles with the doctrine of the Trinity as we see in the Creeds.
I wish we’d all come to confess this doctrine, which is why I often debate and press my Oneness Pentecostal friends on the matter, but saying one is or is not saved is a step further.
I have no problem, really, with the idea that even the “ecumenical councils” are provisional; and that they are only good to the point that they accurately articulate what Scripture discloses and what Christ reveals. Insofar as they do that, they remain provisionally/functionally helpful. That is not to say that they can’t be corrected or even expanded upon. I think, in the main, the best aspects of the “councils” is that they have provided a grammar for Christians to use (as shorthand) in articulating important Christian doctrine; esp. in the face of heretical or heterodox teaching (which is of course their historical context and occasion in the first place).
Brian,
I am not so sure? Note 1 John 1:1-4 ; 2:22-24 ; 4:6 ; 14-15 ; 5:9-13 ; 20. John’s First Letter is a real hammer to the relationship of the Son to the Father, and the Father to the Son, which is ontological, and soteriological!
Brian,
I agree, I do not feel in the place to judge anyone’s eternal destinity (even an atheists, for that matter . . . since I really don’t know their heart). At the same time, I think it is helpful to make a distinction between what is “objectively” articulated (like by OP folk) and the threshold wherein someone has actually and subjectively appropriated “eternal life.” In other words, I would say, that if someone self-consciously and consistently (which is subjective at some level) rejects correction in re. to their views on the Trinity (for example); and in fact seeks to propagate false doctrine about God (in lieu of being corrected from Scripture) — like many OP unitarian folks I’ve run across — then I would, at least be willing to say that their salvation may be suspect (just as I would say the same thing about a JW and LDS — I think there is a difference between being confused and being self-consciously alert about what they are saying in these areas).
@Bobby: Indeed, the councils to provide the basic, unifying language. While historical studies have made it a bit more complex in the last few centuries, it would seem that most of the creeds would be the basic place to start. Even those who do not affirm this or that creed (e.g. most Protestant and E/evangelicals do not affirm some of the dogma about icons from the seventh council) can use the creeds to begin discussing why they do not so that there will be better understanding.
As regards various OP, JW, and LDS teachers, I would worry and pray for them when they begin teaching those doctrines, esp. when they do so with hateful rhetoric toward other Christians proclaiming themselves as the only “true church” as I have seen many OP preachers do.
Of course, on the lay level, it gets a bit more difficult. Many are just trying to wade through this Christianity thing while being good spouses, parents, and paying the bills. I have many friends who find themselves transitioning away from OP churches, but do not know where to go next. These types I believe have genuine faith and I pray God will lead them. Their doctrine may not be salvific, but it usually is harmful.
@ Fr. Robert: As regards those Johannine doctrines, again, I do not see OPs as having trouble with them. JWs? Maybe. Mormons? Maybe. I don’t know.
Bobby,
You know like the Orthodox, I see the Ecumenical Councils as part of that “Good Deposit”. And the Church is also part of that guardian! (2 Tim. 1:13-14) As Timothy, the Church must ‘Guard the Gospel’! (1 Tim. 6:20, etc.)
Brian,
Read those texts in 1 John carefully! I am again not so sure we can negate (note negate, not just not understand it fully…no man can do that!) the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son, without real loss to our souls!
@Brian,
Yeah, I think in general we’re on the same page 🙂 . I would say that OP’s, when pressed, like in Jn 8 and Jesus’ appeal to the Father and Himself as their own witness (where He is appealing to the standard the Mosaic Code on at least two witnesses to establish something), that modalism is exposed from the text at that point; and that this does pose them problems, contextually. And I think if the Greek grammar is dealt with in Jn 1.1, for example, that this would pose problems for a modalist; since the Logos is distinct (yet inseparably related) to “God” in that passage — obviously, as you know, the problem for the OP is eternal distinction between the persons (hypostasis); and if John’s Gospel makes these kinds of eternal distinctions clear, then I would suggest that the consistent OP guy/gal will have problems with John . . . don’t you think so?
We agree on the leadership/lay distinction amongst OP, in general 🙂 .
@Fr. Robert,
I know what you think there, and of course our ecclesiologies are disparate at a certain point; so we’ll just have to leave that where it is 😉 .
Bobby,
You know that fine with me also. I just want to express the position of the Orthodox Church somewhat for any readers. The ignorance of the Orthodox Church by the so-called Protestant and Evangelicals is huge!
@ Fr. Robert: I am not disagreeing with the seriousness of the text. I am saying OPs wouldn’t disagree with what you are saying about it.
@Bobby: They do have struggles with Jn. (esp. the Prologue). I did when I was an OP. Of course, there are statements in Jn. that they use. When Philip asks Jesus to reveal the Father and Jesus answers, “Have you not been with me so long and yet you ask me to see the Father. He who has seen me has seen the Father.” (14.10) We know how they use that (i.e. “See, Jesus is the Father!”) Or Jesus says the Paraclete will come and then says “I will come to you” they say “See, Jesus is the Spirit!” Again, I disagree with their readings, but OP dogma wasn’t developed in a bubble. They use Jn too!
Brian,
Oh yes they would, I have used these texts with them, and they deny the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son!
@ Fr. Robert: As far as 1 Jn. 1.1-4 it would seem there would be no trouble here. “What was from the beginning” could have the basic Johannine overtone of the Creation narrative or it would refer to the neo-beginning based on the first advent of Christ. The first interpretation makes sense in the canon of Johannine thought (e.g. Jn 1.1). The second may make more sense in the immediate context since the author talks about seeing and touching the Word of Life. Either way, most OPs will not deny that the Word was with the Father in the beginning. They just interpret what that means differently.
Also, in 2.22-24 “in the beginning” appears to be when the gospel first reached this audience. So this doesn’t have eternality in focus. And OPs do not deny the oneness of the Father and Son.
In Jn 4, they won’t deny that the Father sent the Son. In Jn 5. the same.
@Fr Robert,
Yes, I know your MO 😉 .
@Brian,
No doubt, i.e. that they “use” Jn too. It is clear though, that even with the examples you’re giving to Fr Robert about the OP; that they obviously would be equivocating on terms, which of course ends up being the problem 🙂 . . . . gotta run! Good discussion.
Brian,
I competely disagree with you here! Read some of the EO “Fathers”/people on John and 1st. John. And the real eternality of that relation of the Father and the Son is at stake, this is part of the whole issue! Btw, have “you” read T.F. Torrance’s book: The Trinitarian Faith, The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church?
@ Fr. Robert: Well, I am not sure what to do about that. I don’t care to make you affirm their theology, but I do think you need to correctly represent it. And you need to know that not all OPs interpret everything the same way nor do they all explain their various views the same.
No, I have not read Torrance.
Brian,
I am not so much talking about the O.P.’s, as I am what the Holy Scripture teaches, and too the Ecumenical Councils as to the Trinity of God.
And I would not proceed on this subject, until I read Torrances book! My take anyway.. 🙂
Amen.