On Facebook my friend and former co-blogger, analytic theologian Dr. Scott Williams posts:
Sometimes Dale Tuggy has (rightly) asked, “what exactly is the Trinity doctrine?” And then has listed several contemporary theories that attempt to show the internal coherence of whatever “the Trinity” is supposed to be. I have a clear answer for him. The Trinity doctrine, at least for orthodox Christians, is found in the seven ecumenical councils. So, if one wants to become acquainted with the Trinity doctrine, one must study these councils. Of course, one can reject the teachings for various reasons, but at least the individual would know what “the Church” has said it believes and rejected that (as opposed to rejecting some contemporary model or theory of the Trinity). [I say this because I’ve been reading through the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils recently for an article I’m writing.
A couple of points in reply. First, this an ideological answer, rather than a substantial one. Dr. Williams hasn’t told us what “the doctrine” is, but rather, has pointed out where it is supposed to be found. He says this answer is according to “orthodox” Christians; I wonder if he meant to say “Orthodox” or “fully catholic,” for many Protestants are counted by themselves and others as officially orthodox, but do not base their views on any council statements (at least, that’s the theory – whether they in fact have is a historical question). Instead, they claim to base their theology directly on Scripture; they believe they can deduce “the doctrine of the Trinity” from the Bible. So while “orthodox” in some sense, they would not agree with his answer.
Second, it is precisely the tradition that he points to which has left so many competing theories on the field. If it is and has always been clear enough what “the doctrine of the Trinity” amounts to, why the perpetual disagreements among those who intend to defend it?
Third, since people know that my own theology is unitarian, I think some imagine that my aims in pointing out the many incompatible Trinity theories are polemical, even ad hominem. “Look at you people; you can’t even get your story straight.” But that is not my point. My point is to break people out of the idea that there is some one Trinity doctrine on which nearly all Christians have long agreed. There is not. I’m willing to entertain any theory which supposedly best makes sense of apostolic traditions as found in the New Testament. I think each Trinity theory should be judged on its merits, not dismissed merely because it has competitors. As a unitarian Christian, it would be easier for me if Scott was right. If there was some one target to aim at, now that I think Trinity theories as such clash with the New Testament, that would positively make my day! As it stands, any conversation I have with a trinitarian is quite complicated, as I first have to discern what he or she thinks “the doctrine of the Trinity is.” If she’s a mysterian or a one-selfer, what I’m going to say to her is a lot different than if she’s a three-selfer. Another dimension of complexity is, on what grounds to they hold it? Scripture alone? Scripture and catholic councils? Both? And another is, to what degree does she think she has any responsibility at all to have coherent and intelligible views on this matter, as opposed to simply saluting “the doctrine of the Trinity” (whatever that is) as “a mystery”? Finding common ground for conversation can be difficult”!
Fourth, the reason for this continuing mire of theological confusion is that a bunch of substantial arguments between mainstream, “catholic” Christians up through about the year 381, were forcibly cut off before there was either resolution or clarity. First, starting with Nicea in 325, the class of catholic bishops took for themselves the right of determining disputed matters of doctrine. This was taken away from the wider church and specifically from scholars, who had before to a large extent freely disputed on these things (although things were slowly, increasingly locked down after the one-bishop system really solidified, starting some time in the 2nd half of the 100s). The cases of Tertullian and Origen are instructive here; neither was a bishop, but they operated relatively freely, and were consulted, even by bishops, based on the supposition of their expertise. But later, this was a bishops’ game, and while some of those were scholars, most were not. In the 300s, the bishops got in bed with the Roman Empire, and it was the head of that empire which forcibly stopped all the theological disputes about the triad in 381. In his mind, he simply declared the Nicenes (what historians now call “Neo-Nicenes”) the winners. But the problem is that the new order amounted to enforced language, namely the revised Nicene creed, language which was and is difficult to interpret, and there new has been any one clear and (almost) universally agreed-on interpretation of it, as best I can tell. In What is the Trinity? I devote about two chapters to parsing through the many relevant meanings of “essence” and “Person.” And it strikes me that it is to a large extent enforced language that is at the core of trinitarian tradition even now.
All in all, I guess I would say to Dr. Williams, please do tell what, in your view, this official conciliar Trinity doctrine is. I have heard some very different answers to this before, sometimes even from people who are (or who think they are) diligent students of those councils (and/or of the “Cappadocian fathers,” who are held to be the key to understanding the 381 council’s theology, and the architects of truly trinitarian theology). If we can narrow the field of competing Trinity theories for those who accept all the “ecumenical” councils, as I think Dr. Timothy Pawl has done with Incarnation theories, then I honestly think that is a sort of progress. If some theories are council-compliant and others are not, that is important to know. We then should revisit the question of which, if any, are a fit with the New Testament, for in principle, a theory could fit one and misfit the other. I am quite sure that in a case of a theory (allegedly) fitting one but not the other, some Roman Catholics would side with the councils, and some Protestants would side with the New Testament.
I don’t know that I would say that verse is “unassailable” but it is definitely one of the group of New Testament verses which makes Christ’s pre-existence seem so plain and straightforward. I do think that John is a very poetic author and uses lots of expressions which may not necessarily be literal all the time. The assumption in most of these verses (many of which are penned by John) is that he is being metaphysical and lofty. While I’ve always read them that way I do think it possible to cogently and consistently read them otherwise. Regardless of the meaning of this specific verse, one I have seriously considered a different meaning than is traditionally understood is John 17:5, where Jesus says that the Father loved him before the world was. Similarly, Paul says that we were called by God to a holy calling “before times eternal” in Christ but we don’t say that we existed from eternity. It is talking about God’s foreknowledge and plan for Christ and us in him. Anyways, it is very hard to consider this with fresh eyes because we almost can’t without a ton of mental and emotional work since we had a Christological framework handed to us…I mean I was a Trinitarian before I was even a Christian….
Aaron,
I agree.
To suggest that one’s interpretation is “unassailable”, or that “coming down from heaven to do the will of God” has to infer a “metamorphosis that needs explanation”, is an overstatement. Not only is the same kind of language used elsewhere in scripture without any implication of a “metamorphosis”, but we have to consider that the language could be figurative.
These considerations give us other options to work with.
John 6 v 38 is an unassailable verse arguing for the pre-existence of Christ in my view:
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
But it means that Jesus had to be some kind of being before he became a human being. Which is a metamorphosis that has to be explained somehow.
This being true according to Dale’s criteria for humanity wouldn’t this mean that Jesus could not have been a “real” human being? In part it seems to me that Dale is arguing against the pre-existence of Jesus because that would preclude him being a “real” human being, having gone through some kind of metamorphosis in order to come in to this world. It is the kind of thing that a Buddhist might believe in but does it fit neatly in a Unitarian constellation? Seemingly not for Dale.
Is this verse why the JWs make Jesus an angel, because he has to exist in some non-human form prior to his coming in to the world?
The verse fits in well to a trinitarian view of Jesus I would say.
Does the bible require us to construct and believe a theory about the trinity? Unitarians seem to assume this. I don’t believe so.
I am a trinitarian because I believe truths about God revealed in the bible, not theories. Where does the bible construct a theory about anything?
You might say I have used the word trinitarian without defining what it means. I could say it is a biblical view of God that is non-unitarian. My view of the bible is that God cannot be reduced to be a purely unitarian being.
“Does the bible require us to construct and believe a theory about the trinity? Unitarians seem to assume this. I don’t believe so.
I am a trinitarian because I believe truths about God revealed in the bible, not theories. Where does the bible construct a theory about anything?
You might say I have used the word trinitarian without defining what it means. I could say it is a biblical view of God that is non-unitarian. My view of the bible is that God cannot be reduced to be a purely unitarian being.”
Well, if a teaching seems contradictory, then we really need to work out how it could possibly be true before we believe it, no? Why believe an apparent contradiction? Now, let’s say that we can figure out a way to argue that the apparent contradiction isn’t a contradiction after all. Should we not be concerned then with whether the ‘solution’ we’ve arrived at is a good fit with what the Bible teaches?
I’ve encouraged Tim Pawl to write this sort of book. But, he’s got another Christology book to do first. Maybe later he’ll write a defense of conciliar Trinitarian theology. Maybe in 10 years I’ll do it. (I’ve got other projects on my plate over the next few years.) If/when I do that, I’ll have answered your question “what do you think the conciliar teaching about the Trinity is?”
I think you are right that the councils rule out certain language and require certain language. Further, there are some ontological commitments in the ecumenical statements. But as far as fine-grained metaphysics through and through, I suspect, given what I now know, that the seven councils haven’t determined that. (I might learn otherwise later.) If you want such a fine-grained analysis, as you might find in scholastic authors or recent contemporary authors, then you are seeking something the councils don’t give you. So, you’d be disappointed. I think the better question is this: what do the seven ecumenical councils teach? How determinate is that teaching? I think it would be worthwhile for someone to write this book – someone trained in analytic philosophy, historical theology, ecclesiology, and hermeneutics. I’m not here addressing the truth of the councils, but just, what do they teach? Is what they teach internally coherent? If what they teach is internally coherent, how well does it fit with Scripture?
Comments are closed.