« Would You Slap Your Father? If So, Youre a Liberal | Main | Confidence sometimes counts for more than being right »

June 08, 2009

Comments

R. Eric Sawyer

D.C., I can well understand your frustration at the idea of the Trinity. Things would be much simpler without it, as well as less scandalous. However, the issue is “what is true?” not “what is simple.” Similarly, the law would be much more appealing if one left out all the confusing parts.

I do share with you the tiresomeness of just being told that the church fathers believed it, so we should to. I think I hold the fathers in higher esteem than you do, but still, their argument must actually hold water. The church today should be able to give a cogent argument, if we expect to hold these doctrines.

To that end, I wrote my own thoughts on the Trinity a few weeks ago, after a substantial number of encounters with Muslims and others who are uneasy with us Trinitarians. I affirm it as a doctrine that is so central to the nature of deity, that a retreat from it (for the sake of ease) would be to do a cheap salesman’s trick of changing the qualities of the product in order to get the sale.

I doubt that my arguments will overwhelm you, but at least it is something other than an appeal to the ancients.

[Link to Eric's above-referenced posting: http://rericsawyer.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity/]


D. C. Toedt

Eric, your posting to which you link does a fine, clear job of summarizing one of the classic trinitarian arguments. I've edited your comment above to include the HTML link.

I submit, though, that the argument is riven by several significant weaknesses.

Consider the argument's first premise, which you summarize thusly:

A traditional and Biblical answer is that God created out of Love, that God is Love. All well and good, and correct. Let’s follow that a bit, and see where it leads.

At best, this premise, together with the scriptures on which it rests, is conjecture (and at worst, wishful thinking).

We know virtually nothing about the Creator. From the extant evidence, we can infer (cf. Rom. 1.20) not much more than that he/she/it/they (i) must be unimaginably smart, and (ii) seem to have something in mind in what appears to be the continuing, evolutionary creation of the universe. That's not much of a foundation on which to build such an elaborate theological house of cards.

------------------------

You summarize another threat of the argument as follows:

If Jesus Christ as the begotten Son of the Father is the expression of His fullness, how can there be another? ... When He has expressed himself perfectly, fully and completely, He has no other expression to give. There can be only one begotten Son. [Emphasis added.]

If we assume this paragraph's premise (in bold), its conclusion does make sense. But as you know, I don't regard the premise as having been established; if anything, the followers who actually knew Jesus during his lifetime seem to have regarded him as a human designated by God as king-in-waiting, but certainly not as being God. (See also my earlier post, The Apostles' Teaching Didn't Seem to Include a Divine Jesus.)

------------------------

It seems to me that the only intellectually-honest approach to the nature of God is an unabashed admission of ignorance, made in the spirit of Benjamin Franklin's expectation that, soon enough, each of us may well have the opportunity of knowing the truth of the matter.

Many thanks for the comment.

Bruno

I have always felt that the concept of the trinity, like so many other doctrines of the faith, are marvelous attempts to make the "Jesus" experience fit Roman and Greek paganism.

Goolam

I think you'll find by studying historic evidence that the trinity is a convenient concept created after the crucifixion and may have come naturally to pagan identity as a means of assimilating the Christian religion amongst the diverse citizens of the Roman empire.

Muslims, Unitarians, and the early Unitarian church have a different view of this concept trinity. It wouldn't be unfair, based on a study of the bible to find that the trinity itself is an invention of logic and not explicit teaching of Jesus (AS).

Interesting site.

Goolam

P.S. There is a man by the name of Yusuf Estes. Try not to dismiss him off hand. He may have some positive things to contribute to your discussion at the very least sharpen your understanding. He's also quite proficient with the bible and can add to your understanding.

Regards,

Goolam

Harrison

This is now a prievious post thread but I thought I should post here anyway ask a question. This might read more like a confessional (or a bizarre rant) than just a post with a question. I would like to apologize for that in advance.

We Christians of many denominations learn about the trinity - that is all well and good; but I can't really remember what exactly or where the Holy Spirit is or figures into the Father and Son part of, "The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit." What is the deal with this? I went through communion and confirmation and I still can't deeply understand this relationship. I have thought that I am flawed for not inheirently understanding this concept.

Is the trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit actually a group of three separate entities? Troism aside, is the trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit a sort of amalgamation of three aspects of a being: the physical, the non-corporeal soul, and the spiritual entity? This might fit a Platonic schema but at the core it leaves me none the wiser. Is the Holy Spirit the Word? Is it the sort of powerful essence that begets the Father and then the Son?

I feel that I am missing something really obvious and I feel stupid because I think I am missing something important that I am just not seeing. (I'm not exactly text-book stoopid, I hold a technical job, I went to trade school and college, I go to church).

So if someone who believes (or tires to believe) stumbles on this quandry, how would people who don't believe or don't know about Christianity (the NBDs you call them) react?

I'm left agreeing with your lead-in, this is a big hurdle to cross (at least it has been for me).

P.S.: But I also wonder if this is really a major issue? God seems to reach people regardless.

D. C. Toedt

Harrison, it's not you that's stupid, at all.

I long ago quit believing that the doctrine of the Trinity was factually correct. Admitting that to myself took some doing. But it feels much better to get that out in the open. (See also my post of a few years ago, Why I Still Call Myself a Christian, and an Episcopalian.)

In response to the question in your penultimate paragraph: I think a lot NBDs (nonbelievers and doubters), after properly rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, proceed to reject religion altogether. That's unfortunate, because they throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And I agree with your last statement.

I'm going to do a new post with a Trinity joke that occurred to me after reading your comment.

Thanks for stopping by.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Favorite Posts

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Adv.

Episcopal Church

  • Come and Grow