Lutheran theology grad student Matthew Frost reflects on The Doctrine of the Trinity, and Scripture.
Some insights:
…because this doctrine is built on a scriptural foundation, we also have a tendency, in every generation, to read the doctrine as it stands back into the texts on which we have built it. And there’s a problem with that, namely: none of the authors of scripture, or their immediate communities, ever espoused anything like our doctrine of the Trinity. They all, in their own ways, wrestled with the relation of the Judean god YHWH, who is both Father and Spirit already in the Tanakh, to the man Jesus, the crucified and risen messiah.
“Scriptural foundation,” yes… in part.
And there’s a second problem, namely: we have better knowledge of the texts of scripture today than the Fathers ever did! …They deserve our reverence, but not our obedience.
Let scripture, speaking with voices that never knew our orthodoxy, be the constant critic of our theologies.
That, my friend, is how reformations get started.
“I see no reason why a scripturally-informed doctrine of the trinity…should ever have to be non-orthodox.”
I wish it were so! https://trinities.org/blog/archives/3948
But, if you accept Jesus at his word, that he was the “Son of God” and not God himself, then this reliance upon the Father for life makes total sense. Jesus is no longer deceitful and the bible stays in harmony.
God, YHWH, in the Hebrew scriptures (Ps. 36:9) is said to be the “source” of life. The Son on the other hand is dependent upon the “Father” for life. (John 6:57) If Jesus were YHWH, and therefore God, he would not be dependent upon the Father for life. Trying to explain this (or any other argument) away by saying that the dependency had to do with Jesus in his “earthly” state is simply a very poor argument and doesn’t hold water. Because the GOD-MAN theory states that he is both fully God and fully man at all times while on earth. Therefore, if Jesus was fully God while on earth there would never be a time that he was reliant on anyone or anything for anything. Especially not life, that for which he is supposed to be the source of.
Matthew,
The problem for you is that there is NOT A SINGLE Trinitarian proof verse.!
We just have gymnastics (described as exegesis) which go nowhere!
Best Wishes
John
Further reading:
“An Account of the Divine Logos”, in which I give a differently-scriptural shape to the same doctrine, without ever not being trinitarian.
“Oh, goodie: the Evangelicals talk about the doctrine of God”, in which I bemoan the state of low-Prot dialogue on the doctrine of the Trinity, while upholding it as a solid description of the territory scripture gives us.
And the key paragraph from the post I was quoted from here in the first place: “So: do make yourself both deeply familiar and comfortable with the logic of the doctrine of the Trinity as we have it today, and participate in its development toward tomorrow. Do understand its grounding in the sources and arguments of the past. But do not mistake the doctrine for the arguments of those sources, even the most putatively orthodox among them. Understand that every source, and every argument in the tradition, has its own perspective.”
I am for a scriptural doctrine of the trinity, as the doctrine of the trinity has always been scripturally derived. I am for a scripturally-informed doctrine of the trinity even if it requires jettisoning certain aspects of the tradition—but I see no reason why a scripturally-informed doctrine of the trinity, one which takes fully into account the differing views of different texts, should ever have to be non-orthodox.
You commend me for my courage … in being adamantly trinitarian? Did you miss something?
The doctrine of the trinity is not in question. The shape of it may be, but the shapes of all doctrines change over time. If I’ve been commended here for challenging the doctrine of the trinity, count me out!
Matthew
Nice post!
I’m sure that it has not escaped your attention that it took hundreds of years for ‘full-blown’ theories of the
trinity to evolve!
These theories would have been quite unacceptable in the first century church – and it took separation by time and space for the ‘full-blown’ theories to emerge.
Desperate trinitarians have come up with the idea that Philippians 2 reflected the early emergence of trinitarian thinking.
I gather that the scripture was written within years of Christs death so is considered ‘first-hand’ evidence.
Trinitarians fail to note that with verses 6-8 the subject of every verb is CHRIST, whereas in verses 9-11 the subject is GOD.
Christ is in a sense the “Second Adam’ who did not commit the sin of trying to equate himself with God
(Genesis 3 v 5). He emptied himself of his human weakness (principally ego) for which GOD has exalted him.
Trinitarians perform ‘cartwheels’ to try and explain the inconsistencies in their arguments -you will know them all- while the truth is so simple . As Always!
As you recommend -“let scripture speak with voices that never knew orthodoxy, be the constant critic of our theologies”.
By the time one has done this, one will find NOT A SINGLE PROOF VERSE!
I commed you for your courage!
Every Blessing
John
… Or how they continue. And that is the hope. Thanks!
Comments are closed.