Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
Do you think unsurpassably “classic” thought about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is from c. 370-460? In this paper, I argue that “Pro-Nicene” theology of that era does not show us Christians how to be self-consistent monotheists, while earlier catholic theologians like Tertullian and Origen (early 3rd c.) do show us how. The most classic source, of course, is the New Testament, which they can help us to see with fresh eyes. (Those thick Nicene goggles block a lot!)
In the fifth century, Christianity had the luxury of not competing with Islam. As I discuss in the paper, Muslims can make a simple, and at first glance compelling argument against Christian theology.
- A claim which strongly and steadily seems contradictory, unless it can be re-stated in a seemingly consistent way, probably is contradictory.
- Contradictory claims are false.
- Trinitarian theology strongly and steadily seems contradictory, and can’t be re-stated in a seemingly consistent way.
- Therefore, probably, trinitarian theology is false. (1-3)
What to do? It seems we can’t reasonably accept 4!
- We can’t just loudly deny 4 – that is missing the point, as 1-3 support 4. This is to fail to “make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you… with gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15-6)
- Only a few foolhardy Protestants will deny 2. If this doesn’t seem foolhardy to you, I recommend the sober discussion by Reformed analytic theologian Dr. James Anderson in this book, pp. 117-26.
- Only uber-sophisticates can concoct reasons for denying 1, which seems, in the end, more secure than their reasons. (Also, they constantly believe 1 in other contexts.) If you are such a sophisticate, I invite you to consider these arguments.
- 3 seems true at first glance, and on a second.
But in this paper, I show how Tertullian (d. c. 225) and particularly Origen (d. 254), show both Christians and Muslims why 3 should be denied. This is because, for all their speculations, Tertullian and Origen preserve elements of New Testament teaching which were later overwritten.
This podcast features the actual audio of my presentation at the theology conference discussed in episode 23. My thanks to the audience for their excellent questions and discussions during and after my session. They were a great group.
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)
The song in this episode is “AcidJazz” by Kevin MacLeod. Not classic rock, but enjoyable nonetheless!
No need for music…
see from 10:51-13:11 in that video i linked by the way.
also, pts (princeton theological seminary) was founded by presbyterians though they may wonder what the heck you’re doing there denying the deity of christ and all according to one presbyterian minister i’ve seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r9FeVeb6l0
michael,
look into oxford univeristy.
http://www.hmc.ox.ac.uk/pages/default.asp?id=1 (a unitarian college)
also, catholic universities give strong points toward a unitarian reading of scriptures (this is because catholics don’t reject the value of tradition like protestant, unitarian fundamentalists do).
Michael,
Thank you for your comment. What research interest would you like to pursue with your PhD? Have you considered chatting to Dustin Smith who is completing his PhD on GJohn?
Here’s my private email, maybe we can chat about it: talkingdonkey1981@gmail.com.
“Muslims can make a simple, and at first glance compelling argument against Christian theology.”
Why the focus on Muslims? Anyone can make that argument (including Jews, who were around in the fifth century), and should it not say against “trinitarian theology”?
Jaco,
I agree with your point, but mine was a little different. Despite the progress that you are right about, it is still true that there’s hardly a Christian college, university, or seminary (or church) that will allow a unitarian viewpoint to be expressed. Yes, you’ll find the viewpoint here and there in the major research universities and in academic journals and books, but not in the Christian schools, seminaries, or churches. That was my point. I completed the equivalent of a ThM (STM) at a major research institution (Yale), but I did not pursue a PhD because no Christian school, seminary, or university would even think about hiring someone with my Christian convictions. So that would mean hoping to get hired by the handful of non-Christian research universities that have programs in New Testament and Christian Origins. But even then, at least in the US, I’m probably too conservative for them! So, yes, their is progress being made in terms of the influence of the scholars you mentioned and the increasing separationism in Evangelicalism, but for all that we still don’t see unitarian scholars in the Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries. I mean, even open theists are forbidden; how much more unitarians?! I cannot even imagine broaching the topic in an interview with a Christian college, university, or seminary–or most churches. They would look at you like you were mad! But hopefully this will change eventually. I think it will probably take new institutions, though. I’ve often dreamed of starting a new seminary. That’s how they did it in Racow.
Michael,
“Today it’s ostracization–there’s hardly a Christian school, seminary, or church that will allow a unitarian viewpoint to be expressed.”
I think this picture is starting to change. Thank God for liberal universities where the fables and faerie-tales of the conservative camp are challenged by excellent and the latest scholarship. Sean Finnegan recently completed his MTh at Boston University, and he is a well-trained and formidable humanitarian Unitarian. The influence by scholars like John Hick, Maurice Casey, G.B.Caird, James Dunn, James McGrath and Bart Ehrman have been irreversible, HENCE the separationist drive we find among Evangelical institutions. A buzz-word that has breathed life back into presuppositional logic since the time of Van Til is “the Christian world-view;” as if that would lend any more legitimacy to the set-up uncritically endorsed by fundamentalist Christians. So no, I don’t think the picture is as grim. It used to be, but certainly not anymore. I see increasing in-fighting and power-struggles among Evangelical fundamentalists and their marginalisation is self-imposed. These are all signs of an out-dated and drained world-view under serious threat from within and without!
“God has not taken steps to correct falsehoods among the most fundamental of doctrines, if unitarianism is correct.”
In God’s books orthopraxy and orthodoxy are not distinct. The same pressing issue can be said about the conduct and legacy of the Church. Compared to other religions on whose side God is apparently not on, the Christian Church as “light-bearer” and follower of holy spirit has been awfully dark and murderous. It’s shown itself more in the business of following an angel of death than the spirit of life. Are you going to settle uncritically with this legacy too, seeing that “God has left this uncorrected for centuries?”
Just as in the first century when God “visited” the nation of Israel with a man who was murdered and who was later believed to be the Messiah; likewise there have been groups who have stood up and spoken out against not only the Church’s devilish legacy, but also her doctrine. These flickers of light were persecuted and oppressed. A Church obviously disinterested in life and truth and more concerned about hatred-driven power cannot and will not deal mercifully with truth and change and light. Her design would prohibit her from doing it. So I don’t know what you’re driving at, JK, but your cul-de-sacs are doing your case no favour.
God has not taken steps? He’s taken steps all along the way. This blog is just such a step! This is the way God always takes steps, by working through human beings. So, again, God has taken steps all along the way. It’s just that the “orthodox” have resisted it. Every “prophet” he sends, they persecute. It was torture and murder yesterday–read about the Radical Reformation. Today it’s ostracization–there’s hardly a Christian school, seminary, or church that will allow a unitarian viewpoint to be expressed. In short, what Stephen said of the Jewish people is true of the “orthodox” through the ages on this doctrine: there has been a continual resistance of the Holy Spirit, which is to say there has been a continual resistance of the steps God has taken to reveal the truth about himself. So if you really think God has not taken steps, then you either are failing to appreciate how God works–through human beings–or you are not considering how the human beings God has tried to work through have been treated by the orthodox–or both.
The truth, then, is that God does care about theology and he has been working to correct errors, working in his own way that gives human beings real responsibility. Moreover, the odds are not slim that you will arrive at the truth about God IF you are willing to pull a Descartes and doubt everything and rebuild carefully one step at a time. I’m saying this from experience as one who was a card-carrying Evangelical Calvinist for 10 years (including 4 years studying in one of their flagship seminaries) before I started really thinking for myself. There is no time like today to start that rebuild! You have all the resources in the world available to you through the wealth of the Internet, Amazon.com, and a good theological library. And I would be happy to walk with you the whole way. Just email me at mindingthetruth.com@gmail.com. I would love to help you, brother.
“And, yes, it takes more work in light of all the false doctrines that have come to be entrenched as true; but it is still feasible”
But why bother? God has not taken steps to correct falsehoods among the most fundamental of doctrines, if unitarianism is correct. It would seem that he’s okay with Christians having false doctrine. I think of all the debates in philosophical theology that I have a stake in. Why should I be concerned about it if God isn’t? Perhaps theology just isn’t as important as many of us thought. Moreover, the odds of me arriving at the right answers some 2000 years after the fact seem pretty slim. Why not just shut down the AAR and donate the funds to Christian charities?
I see no time-period specified as to when the holy spirit would guide Christians in all truth. And if Christians wouldn’t “listen to him,” guidance can be provided; unreceptive and wicked hearts will NOT be guided to all truth. What is even more creepy, is that if the holy spirit did indeed guide the ancient post-biblical church, should we also endorse and embrace something as BASICALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY anti-holy spirit as the anti-Semitism and bloodshed of subsequent centuries? I mean, would the holy spirit guide a Church in violation of John 13:35??? I think our orthodox friends above need some serious perspective-taking…
Michael,
An excellent post!
It seems that right from the start there was a tension between the simple straight-forward truth , and more ‘sophisticated’ views on the faith.
Consider Matthew 11 v25
“Jesus said in reply “I give praise to you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned , you have revealed then to the childlike…”
(I think our friend ‘newenglandsun’ could learn something from this!)
We see this theme repeated by the Apostles – with warnings against apostacy in the Church.
Surely there is a lesson here?
Every Blessing
John
JK,
Jesus said he would guide those he was speaking to, namely the Disciples, into all truth. So it is already stepping beyond the original scope, or import, of that passage to apply it directly to those who followed the Disciples-Apostles. Moreover, even if we apply it in a more indirect way to all Christians of all times, still it is a matter of God guiding us in the truth not guaranteeing that we don’t stray from the truth. That God does not guarantee that Christians do not stray from the truth is evidenced by the many, many warnings Paul and other early Christian leaders gave against falling into error, making shipwreck of the faith, and so on. One does not warn against something that is not a possibility. Also, anyone who studies the history of doctrine in the early church–indeed throughout the entire pre-modern period–knows that it was through persecution, even murder, that the views we now know as “orthodox” won the day. So is that what God’s guidance into truth looks like? Persecution and murder? Obviously not. Apparently God gave and continues to give Christians real responsibility for discerning and passing on the truth. The sad thing is that more often than not Christians, especially those in leadership positions, have failed in that responsibility.
Finally, the idea that if one or many so-called orthodox doctrines, even cardinal orthodox doctrines like the trinity doctrine, are false then there is no way to know what is true or not, whether the Scriptures are a reliable guide or not, etc. is simply a non sequitur, a slippery slope fallacy. God has revealed himself clearly enough in both nature and in the Scriptures, but one must do the hard work of thinking through his revelations of himself. And, yes, it takes more work in light of all the false doctrines that have come to be entrenched as true; but it is still feasible. Start with those whom we know were attested by God as messengers from him, Jesus and Paul, and work out from there to Moses and the prophets. And always keep a dialogue with what good reason, or common sense, reveals. For example, good reason says that a good God does not determine all things, for that would make him a monster. Good reason says that God will not torture people forever, for that would make him a monster. Listening to good reason like that will help you see that such false doctrines like those are built upon misinterpretations of the Scripture and/or philosophical reasoning from incorrect starting points.
Yes JK, there should be unity of belief of some central teachings from the scriptures if “Christian” as a term is to still have descriptive validity. But unity/diversity has always been the tension in Christianity, as it is in every other religion. At the end of the day, God must celebrate diversity, as we have diverse authors in the scriptures describing who He is and what he is like. The unifying elements of Christianity are probably a lot fewer than we might have hoped for. I think your ‘creeping worry’ has more to do with the diverse scriptures themselves that God has revealed than the diversity of Christian interpretation of those same texts. Read Dunn’s “Unity and Diversity”, quite helpful in this regard. In the end, there’s more faith required than we once thought.
So here’s my creeping worry. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth (John 16:13), which is often used to buck up the trustworthiness of the creeds. If you’re right, Dale, then one of the major doctrines of historical Christianity, made explicit in the creeds, is false. So it would seem that God wasn’t all that concerned that his people have good doctrine, even on something as fundamental as the Trinity. I start to wonder what else that I’ve counted as fundamental is merely an artifact of human error. Given your evangelical roots, you’ll probably want to point me to Scripture, but why trust the Bible on matters of doctrine? Perhaps inspiration is itself false. Perhaps the Bible is filled with false claims that God didn’t bother to correct, just as he didn’t bother to correct the Trinity. See what I mean? I’ve long held that Christians can disagree about all sorts of things, so long as we agree on absolute foundational doctrines. Once we pull one of those away, where is it safe to stand?
High Fives, Dale, with the Q & A. That’s where we see your hard work in understanding both Tertullian and Origen paying off. I appreciated how you included Islam’s hard question about Christianity’s (mainstream) supposed “monotheism”, simply b/c I have personal investment within that tribe in communicating who Jesus really was. But you could have just as well inserted Judaism’s concern for the OT view of the one true God as well. Listening to the feedback from the audience, I’m reminded how you are fighting an uphill battle (in the USA especially?) against mainstream Christianity’s traditionalism. Yet you carried yourself well. Analytic theologians have no need to fear mainstream traditionalism, as the doors are open (finally) now to free speech within evangelicalism (via blogs like your site). Evangelicalism may be splitting or splintering or simply expanding beyond what it thought it was fighting for originally (inerrency, etc.). But that’s okay. What matters is thoughtful followers of Christ looking at 1st century texts and offering new solutions to old problems.
Comments are closed.