{"id":40525,"date":"2018-08-10T11:06:20","date_gmt":"2018-08-10T15:06:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=40525"},"modified":"2018-08-10T11:08:48","modified_gmt":"2018-08-10T15:08:48","slug":"as-easy-answer-to-what-is-the-trinity-doctrine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/as-easy-answer-to-what-is-the-trinity-doctrine\/","title":{"rendered":"As easy answer to: What is “the” Trinity doctrine?"},"content":{"rendered":"
On Facebook my friend and former co-blogger, analytic theologian Dr. Scott Williams posts:<\/p>\n
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.<\/strong> 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A couple of points in reply. First, this an ideological answer<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n
Second, it is precisely the tradition that he points to which has left so many competing theories on the field<\/strong>. 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?<\/p>\n
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<\/strong>, even ad hominem<\/em>. “Look at you people; you can’t even get your story straight.” But that is not<\/em> 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.<\/strong> 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”!<\/p>\n
Fourth, the reason for this continuing mire of theological confusion<\/strong> 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<\/em><\/strong>, 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?<\/em><\/a> 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/seven-450x345.jpg\")
On Facebook my friend and former co-blogger, analytic theologian Dr. Scott Williams posts:<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Vatican-II-450x274.jpg\")
Fourth, the reason for this continuing mire of theological confusion<\/strong> 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<\/em><\/strong>, 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