What do you think?
Take Isaiah 63:9-10 (actually you can keep reading on in that chapter for more about the Spirit and the Father):
In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.
Lots of us would be happy with an approach that says that for the doctrine of the Trinity to be established it would need to be shown from Scripture that:
1. There is only one God
2. There are three persons in the Godhead
3. Each person is fully God
And not that every text bears the load of proving all three propositions at the same time.
One or two caveats to add to this.
If, as it is sometimes suggested, the Trinity could not have been known and understood before the incarnation because of the rampant idolatry of the times how do webest account for the fact that an unschooled people (the Med was full of idolatrous Gentiles) converted to Trinitarianism lock, stock and barrel without much of a fuss?
If we are tempted to suggest that the OT saints could not have understood this truth how do we know this? Is that warranted by the texts (explicitly or implicitly) or is it an attempt to psychologize about the OT saints?
Is the anti-trinitarianism of the Judaism of the first and 21st centuries best accounted for not by a lack of biblical warrant but on other grounds (2 Cor. 3 and John 5, and John 10, come to mind)?
Does it really matter? We are all clear that Christian faith is Trinitarian. Does it matter if, for a time, pre-Christian faith was actually unitarian?
Do engage with the issues with an open Bible, a charitable spirit, and a desire to honour the Triune God.
Any opportunistic comments from anti-trinitarians, they always appear when I post something about the Trinity, will be deleted. If we want to read anti-trinitarian literature we can find it ourselves. You have been warned.
9 comments:
I think if it is a divisive issue for believers, then we should be careful not fan flames in keeping with Romans 14:1 'Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.'
Is blind acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity necessary for saving faith?
There are people out there who say you are a heretic if you deny the doctrine of the trinity, and if you are simply not sure about it, they would still question the genuiness of your faith.
Why?
Interesting topic! Michael Brown gives some pretty full answers in Volume 2 of his series "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" (Baker Books, 2000). In brief: there is nothing about the NT doctrine of the Trinity which contradicts anything in the OT, and there are some parallels to the doctrine in rabbinic writings and in the Chabad branch of modern Judaism, see
http://roshpinaproject.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/chabad-telethon-god-the-rebbe-is-listening/
PS a lot of Judaism's objections to the Messiahship of Jesus were actually formulated in the middle ages rather than in the 1st century. see here for an overview and response to some of those objections in modern garb
http://roshpinaproject.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/full-revolution11.pdf
James, I think it is interesting you call the Trinity the doctrine of the new testament, but the word trinity never appears there.
In John 14:28, Jesus says, " the Father is greater than I.
When Jesus says the Father is greater than I, it seems to void the idea that of three equal interlocking rings, something I picture when I hear the word trinity mentioned.
Why limit God to just three? If God wanted to appear tomorrow to us as a black handicapped woman, who or what could stop him?
When trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the scriptures, why try to simplify God by making him the Triune God. It can be argued this is a manmade construct to try to put God in a box.
Islam says, 'Far be it for God to have a son.' Islam actually came after Christianity and is an attempt to appeal to Jews - to pull them away from the gospel. You can see the tension between a triune God, Jews subscribing to Deut. 6:4 and Muslims playing Jews off against Christians with the statement above.
This is where I say, the concept of the Trinity is disputable (at the center of the above dispute between cultures). And I also say, "Why when we as Christaians are supposed to love the Jewish people back to the Lord should we dogmatically hold to the 'doctrine of the trinity' in whatever form it might be stated? Paul was clear on disputable matters, don't make an issue of them. Romans 14:1 'Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.'
The concept of the Trintiy is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, and to say it is implied or should be inferred is all that proponents of it can do.
Is it not legitimate for someone to say, "Jesus is my Lord and Savior. I believe in Jesus' Father, and that the Father is greater than Jesus, as Jesus said. And I believe and have experienced in my own life the infilling of the Holy Spirit. I am just not keen on trying to wrap God in a construct which might cause a weaker brother to stumble."? Cannot such a person have saving faith?
I don't think it is loving to force the idea of the Trinity on people.
As to the old testament saints being trinitarian, I don't think so, or they could have mentioned the construct explicitly.
Pharisees in Jesus day were no doubt looking for Messiah ben Jehudah, the conquering king to free them from Roman occupation, not Messiah ben Yosef, the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 who God the Father was pleased to crush for our sakes. I don't think they were thinking of the coming king as coequal with God the Father. And I doubt they were expecting a virgin birth with God incarnate. Isaiah may have seen the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, envisioning all as God, but he didn't mention the word Trinty.
I think dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity distracts people from what the scriptures are really trying to tell us. There must be better things to get excited about promoting.
Romans 11:13
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
I don't think we will ever arouse Jewish people to envy by calling the Judaism of the 1st and 21st century anti-trinitarian and making an issue of the Trinity. I think we could say to Modern Judaism, 'You know. We think it is okay to say the Sh'ma, that God is One, and believe in Jesus as Messiah.'
Why put the stumbling block of the Trinty in front of them? I think we should get excited about what the scriptures really do say and love people back to the Lord accordingly.
Romans 11:12 "But if their [the Jewish people's] transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
This is something we should all be excited about. This is more exciting than a limited concept of God which is at the heart of cultural clashes. This gentle, down to earth love can have real saving power.
If you think that the trinity is the largest stumbling block for the Jews then you are quite wrong. Paul is very clear that the Cross is the stumbling block for the Jews, and if you're approach to stumbling blocks is to pretend they don't matter for the sake of love and unity then you're going to have a really big problem with the gospel.
Back on the subject of the original post however:
As with a huge amount of Old Testament theology, the Christian take on trinity is very much shaped by observing the OT through NT eyes. I wouldn't want to write OT Jews off as not having a clue about the trinity, but I would no more suggest they had full understanding of the trinity than their understanding of salvation by grace.
There are many clear hints at the trinity in the OT, just as there are clear arrows pointing towards the Cross, but I think that were you given the Old Testament alone, especially without the 2000 years of Christian orthodox theology which we have, then you probably wouldn't readily see the trinity in there.
This is not to say that you couldn't, nor that OT Israel didn't. But at that time they had not seen Jesus in the flesh (unless you want to count a few appearances as the angel of the LORD), and the Holy Spirit did not dwell in each of them. So of course they didn't have the same view of the trinity as we do now.
And similarly, 21st century Jews do not see Jesus as God incarnate, and they do not have the spirit dwelling in them, so why should we expect them to have the same understanding of the trinity that we do?
Peter, you are not being kind to my position. I did not say the doctrine of the Trinity is the largest stumbling block for Jews, nor do I think that. I simply said it was at the center of a clash of cultures.
Also, you are not being kind, because I pretty much stuck to the issue of the Trinity. There is no indication in anything I wrote suggesting that I would ignore the cross as a stumbling block for the sake of unity with people who don't acknowledge the death of Christ on the cross and his resurrection.
I simply stated that the doctrine of the Trinity is disputable. And as soon as someone says it is disputable, there are people in the community who will point an accusing finger at you and state that the Trinity is the central most important thing in Christianity, and if you don't believe in the Trinity, you are a heretic, you are not a Christian.
These people get extremely judgemental, and they cannot even discuss the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity may simply be man's vain attempt to summarize that which is beyond himself.
I don't equate the cross with the doctrine of the Trinity. The death and resurrection of Christ is not disputable. The cross is not disputable. These are recorded in the NT. And of course these are stumbling blocks to faith. The doctrine of the Trinity which is not explicitly mentioned in either OT or NT is simply not on the same level as the stumbling block of the cross.
So, why should we make an issue of describing God in terms that even He in His own Word did not choose to use? His oneness is mentioned in scripture. His definitely being a triunity is not. I am not saying the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. I am just saying we don't have enough facts from OT and NT scriptures to justify saying definitely God is triune in any form the doctrine of the trinity is stated. And as such, we shouldn't be trying to shove the doctrine of the Trinity down people's throats when it is not the gospel.
Christ's incarnation, the cross and the death and resurrection of Christ are essential parts of the gospel, and so is his coming kingdom.
God speaking through his prophets said a lot of things we can be definite about. Why make an issue of something He did not state? Isn't there enough there in the scriptures for ministers of the gospel to discuss without getting themselves and the community hung up on something that isn't explicitly stated?
A minister I respect once said, major on the majors and minor on the minors. I think Jesus = major, doctrine of the trinity = minor.
The original post smacks of intolerance for people who have any other viewpoint. The post starts off stating that modern and OT Judaism are antitrinitarian. What a great way to state things (sarcasm intended). Throw up stumbling blocks in front of people before you even have a chance to lead them to the stumbling block of the cross.
We need to reach the Jewish people. Paul was clear on that too. And I want to point out how we can do it more kindly. I did point out how we can tell people it is okay to say God is One and believe in Jesus. By that, I meant believe in the death on the cross and resurrection too, and look forward to his coming kingdom.
It almost sounds like boasting against the torn out branches when we say Judaism of the OT and today is antitrinitarian. Now I am sure Martin didn't intend to boast, but it seemed to speak against the torn out branches. We Christians can be torn out and the natural branches can be grafted back in again (Romans 11:17-20).
The previous comment regarding this post which says, 'And similarly, 21st century Jews do not see Jesus as God incarnate' is even worse than saying antitrinitarian. There are Messianic Jews today who believe Jesus is God incarnate. The words are not kind to these Jewish believers.
You're quite right and I apologise, I was not being very charitable towards your viewpoint. It just seems to me like your real reason for avoiding the trinity is because people disagree about it, which is not necessarily a great reason. I'm sure there are things which you hold as major which other Christians would disagree with.
What I regard as true and important is dictated by what I find in the scriptures, not by whether or not other people agree with it.
As for trinity being of second importance, I struggle with that view. I do find trinity quite clearly in the Bible, and so have the vast majority of Christians in the last 2000 years. Trinity is an orthodox mainstream viewpoint and is accepted as truth by most evangelical Christians you will meet (although perhaps not clearly understood).
If you like I could post a summary of some scriptures which point to that, but it will take a little time to do that so I won't post it now. I find them convincing enough to call trinity a major issue, although I wouldn't say it was a saving issue.
Of course we don't want to present trinity as a barrier for Jews, but I don't think that is what is happening, nor do I think that was Martin's intent. Agreed anti-trinitarian is a fairly strong expression, but all Martin is saying is, if the trinity is present in the Old Testament which is Jewish scripture, then why don't they believe in a triune God?
I gave my thoughts on that in the previous post, and as Martin said his post, the following discussion should be on the basis of God being Trinity.
Great topic.
By way of digging...
* Did the NT set out to explicitly teach Trinity?
* Who makes Trinitarian confessions in the NT?
I'm not sure anyone makes a Trinitarian confession in the NT, nor do I think anyone sets out to intentionally teach Trinitarianism in the NT, yet we have no hesitation in saying that Paul, John etc understood God to be Father, Son and Spirit, One God.
We rightly do our work in the NT Scriptures and show, very convincingly, that as a whole, the NT shows that the One God is Three Persons. That his Three Person-ness is clearly revealed as the underpinning Doctrine of God in the NT.
But when we ask the same question of the OT, the usual reaction is to state with no hesitation that Abraham, David and Isaiah didn't understand the One God to be Three Persons. That, i think, exposes a real problem.
An assumption is made about the OT *before* reading it. If you apply that same logic and method to the NT you have to conclude that Paul, Timothy and Titus didn't have clue about God's Triune nature either. Oooops.
So I don't think that our Trinitarian understanding of the OT is based on NT reading of the old. Just look at how God is revealed in both testaments and wonderfully, we have the same God, Most High, Servant and Spirit revealed in both testaments.
Martin has very helpfully quoted from Isaiah which clearly shows a Lord in the Heavens, The Sent One who saves, and the indwelling Spirit. He could have gone to Isaiah 48:16 which Jewish believers love to quote, or the stacks of others in Isaiah alone.
I just don't think it is possible to drive a wedge in here between the testaments. However you answer for the Old, you have to answer the same for the New. And vice versa. You just do.
In Jesus,
Rich
Thanks for your comments.
I am interested in the scriptures you would reference, though if it takes time, I am sure there are references on line ready for my perusal.
I would rather focus on what the scriptures actually say, rather than saying they infer or imply the doctrine of the Trinity. I simply think starting with the doctrine of the trinity as truth sidetracks us from what the scriptures are really communicating and any logic leading to that conclusion.
I appreciate that you consider the doctrine more of a major, and I have since talked to a Jewish believer (considers herself a Christian and is actively in the church - mainline Christian denomination). She apparently finds comfort in the doctrine of the Trinity, though her viewpoint is more heartfelt than analytical. And I can see how the doctrine can be used to say that Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) is (are) God and that God is still one.
This oneness is important, since the scripture stating that God is one, is not to be abolished, but upheld. And any denial of this oneness would be an affront to Torah observant Jews.
I would find scripture references pointing to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God of primary importance. If I have scripture references pointing to the Son and Holy Spirit as both actually being fully God, then the doctrine of the Trinity or a doctrine including the Holy Spirit and Jesus as God (though not necessarily limited to three, Triune) becomes more of a major as you say. Triuneness can only come if Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit can be shown to be all inclusive.
Maybe the references you have in mind cover this.
Post a Comment