The Confusing Incarnation

[Physics Guy]

I'm not completely sure but I think that Catholics, probably Orthodox, and a significant fraction of Anglicans would all acknowledge that the Trinity is only embryonically there in the New Testament and became fully articulated in later Church teaching. I think we'd all argue that you can see it in the New Testament if you know how to look for it, but I don't think we'd insist that it's unambiguous and explicit.

Claiming that the New Testament clearly teaches the Trinity would seem to be more a Protestant thing, I think, because of the rejection of all authority besides the Bible. Hardly any Protestant denominations or movements have backed away from the Trinity; it's considered a core Christian doctrine by pretty much everyone. So if you can only base your doctrines on Scripture, you've got to find the Trinity in the Scriptures.

Since the Bible includes a diverse range of viewpoints, the Protestant need for comprehensive and coherent Biblical doctrine seems to me to demand a fair amount of eisegesis in general. The Trinity isn't the only case, and the way of reading the New Testament that makes it clearly Trinitarian is a way of reading Scripture that seems normal and natural, I think, to most Protestants.

[Kishkumen]

I'm not completely sure but I think that Catholics, probably Orthodox, and a significant fraction of Anglicans would all acknowledge that the Trinity is only embryonically there in the New Testament and became fully articulated in later Church teaching. I think we'd all argue that you can see it in the New Testament if you know how to look for it, but I don't think we'd insist that it's unambiguous and explicit.

Claiming that the New Testament clearly teaches the Trinity would seem to be more a Protestant thing, I think, because of the rejection of all authority besides the Bible. Hardly any Protestant denominations or movements have backed away from the Trinity; it's considered a core Christian doctrine by pretty much everyone. So if you can only base your doctrines on Scripture, you've got to find the Trinity in the Scriptures.

Since the Bible includes a diverse range of viewpoints, the Protestant need for comprehensive and coherent Biblical doctrine seems to me to demand a fair amount of eisegesis in general. The Trinity isn't the only case, and the way of reading the New Testament that makes it clearly Trinitarian is a way of reading Scripture that seems normal and natural, I think, to most Protestants.

Yes, indeed! Thanks for pointing that out, PG. That makes a lot if sense and conforms to my recollection of conversations with Christians about the Trinity. The rejection of Tradition is one thing that I have never quite jelled with in Protestantism. To imagine that so much rests on what one can find in the surviving remnants of Early Christian literature from the first two centuries AD that was canonized. Doesn’t really work for me.

[msnobody]

Philo is right, you do prompt us to think through things. It leads me down the path of what the implications are if Jesus wasn’t/isn’t God, and even down the path of what if the Holy Spirit isn’t God. I’d have no hope, no future, no assurance, and ultimately, no identity.
Hmmm, I’m going off to think.

I would be interested to know why life would become so desolate without a specifically Triune Deity.

I would be forever separated from God. It would mean that God didn't come to take the punishment I deserve for my sin upon Himself, thereby protecting me from His coming judgement on sin. Without the triune God, He would not dwell in me [Holy Spirit] as a guarantee. I'd not be gathered to Him and my people when I die. I would never know what it is like to be free from sin. I would not know the fellowship of believers, which I have more fully realized over the past couple of years. I would get my identity from who the world or even myself tells me I am. I wouldn't know what it is like to yearn for others to know this merciful, loving triune God. Without the triune God, I wouldn't know the love of God. I imagine I would feel an emptiness inside.

[msnobody]

There is certainly nothing in any scripture that indicates this.

Sure there is. You have to read and study the Book.

I've got to agree with Jersey here. I remember once either on this board or on ZLMB someone asking me, "Scripture, is that all you've got?" "Yes, that is all I've got," because God's word does what it says it will do.

[huckelberry]

Yes, indeed! Thanks for pointing that out, PG. That makes a lot if sense and conforms to my recollection of conversations with Christians about the Trinity. The rejection of Tradition is one thing that I have never quite jelled with in Protestantism. To imagine that so much rests on what one can find in the surviving remnants of Early Christian literature from the first two centuries AD that was canonized. Doesn’t really work for me.

I have a theological tome from a conservative protestant, Millard Erickson for occasional perspective. Starting the discussion of the trinity I find the fallowing simple statement.

"In the doctrine of the Trinity , we encounter one of the truly distinctive doctrines of Christianity. Among the religions of the word the Christian faith is unique in making the claim that God is one and yet there are three who are God. In so doing it presents what seems on the surface to be a self contradictory doctrine. Furthermore this doctrine is not overly or explicitly stated in Scripture. Nevertheless devout minds have been led to it as they sought to do justice to the witness of scripture. "

I think this is a clear nod to the role tradition has played in the development of the doctrine of the trinity. Protestants with a bit of education are aware of the history of the development with the uncertainties and disagreements which lie behind the development of the doctrine.

To say Protestants reject tradition is a misunderstanding. Protestants have a lot of tradition. There are theological books with some authority. There are lots of books discussing Christian experience and hope as well as books reviewing the interpretation of scripture. There is a rich tradition of hymns reflecting peoples experience and sharing that experience with others. Those things form a living tradition informing and shaping peoples understanding of the faith.

[Jersey Girl]

Sure there is. You have to read and study the Book.

I have read and studied the Book, and I don’t see these specific doctrines in there. The reason for that is because they are not there. They are later developments for which interpretations of existing scripture were brought in to support. You may accept those arguments, but simply studying the New Testament more does not lead to belief in those doctrines without a lot of other interpretation and argument brought in.

Tell me why you chose to take my comment out of context without including the comment that I was responding to?

[Kishkumen]

Tell me why you chose to take my comment out of context without including the comment that I was responding to?

Because I don’t like quotes within quotes.

[Kishkumen]

To say Protestants reject tradition is a misunderstanding. Protestants have a lot of tradition. There are theological books with some authority. There are lots of books discussing Christian experience and hope as well as books reviewing the interpretation of scripture. There is a rich tradition of hymns reflecting peoples experience and sharing that experience with others. Those things form a living tradition informing and shaping peoples understanding of the faith.

I get it. Really. The corruption and worldly power of the Catholic Church became intolerable and something had to be done. But how do you get the monkey off your back? How do you remain Christian at the same time? Certain choices had to be made. Protestantism has traditions, but Tradition does not play the role it does in Catholicism. At the end of the day, scripture is the real measure of truth. And it is probably better not to be saddled with some of what St. Augustine had to say.

My overall point is that no religion is without its problems and weaknesses. On the other hand, the ones that survive for any sizable chunk of time must have their good points too. LDS people are often at a disadvantage when others come to criticize their faith because they have such a poor grasp of the issues with others’ faiths. Many, not all. The more I learn, the less I see that Mormons are on especially treacherous grounding. Every faith is an interesting mix of aspirations and human foibles. Not one makes inherent sense without a leap of faith or surrender to some irrationality.

[Kishkumen]

I've got to agree with Jersey here. I remember once either on this board or on ZLMB someone asking me, "Scripture, is that all you've got?" "Yes, that is all I've got," because God's word does what it says it will do.

Just as I marvel at the self-denial Mormons have about worship of Joseph Smith, I also marvel at the elevation of the Bible to a virtual fourth member of the Godhead, complete with agency. Who is God’s Word? The Bible or Jesus? It not infrequently gets slippery when you listen to or read some Protestant Christians. Here our friend msnobody talks about “God’s word doing what it says it will do” as though it were God, or at least some divine entity.

In other words, this is a kind of Bibliolatry. I understand it comes with the territory, and I am sure I will be told by others that what I say here is inaccurate or offensive. But I think it is rather the case that different Christian groups end up implicitly deifying this or that aspect of their system while not recognizing what they are doing. For LDS people it is priesthood authority. For Protestants it’s the Bible.

[Physics Guy]

By-the-way note for Kishkumen relating to an older thread but not completely irrelevant here:

Just this Sunday I heard a Lutheran pastor mention, in a side remark from the pulpit during a sermon, that Yahweh was the pre-incarnate Jesus. I was surprised but I didn't ask him about it afterwards. Anyway this traditional Mormon identification may not be as foreign to mainstream Christianity as I thought, after all.