crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (03/16/90)
In article <Mar.11.00.12.04.1990.8421@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) writes: > >I am unaware of any Biblical guidelines that require belief in the Trinity >for one to be a Christian. (Indeed, the Bible does not specifically mention >the Trinity, which is instead a formula derived from Biblical statements.) >I am not interested in a discussion of whether the Trinity is true, but I >am interested in hearing why people consider themselves qualified to say >who is a Christian and who isn't. Mr Bakken, can you provide some solid >justification for your claim that non-Trinitarians are not Christians? Humans, and especially scientists, have this strange desire to try and find patterns in things, to find simple theoretical models that encompass large numbers of truths that are otherwise seemingly unrelated. The doctrine of the Trinity is such a model. It came from the early church fathers looking at what the Scriptures clearly taught about the complex relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. They thought about these things, prayed about them, tried to put together and harmonize, and came up with the idea of a Trinity. Note that the Trinity, while not directly in the Bible, is fully consistent with all of the relevant Biblical statements. To the best of my knowledge, in the 1900+ years since the Incarnation, the Trinity is the only formula anyone has proposed which does not contradict Scripture. Sure, there have been other attempts. The Unitarians tried, but they ignore the deity of Jesus. The Docetists (*) tried, but they ignore the humanity of Jesus. Et cetera. ----- * - Docetism = the belief that Jesus was not real, but merely an illusion, a sort of "friendly ghost." ----- So it seems to me that, for a real Christian, only two options are possible: 1. Belief in the Trinity. 2. Belief in the Biblical statements about Father, Son, and Spirit with no unifying formula (or at least, none that we know). I would welcome any comments on this proposal. Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh [I don't disagree with what you say, but the actual history was not quite so peaceful as this description implies. The doctrine was actually developed in response to the challenge of the Arians. In fact most of the formal doctrines were developed in order to help the Church respond to people who said things that seemed to many Christians to be wrong. In order to resolve the issue, theologians had to develop more precise definitions, and that's where many of the doctrines came from. In my opinion the major challenge to the Trinity these days is from those who believe that the basic philosophical vocabulary on which it is based -- neo-Platonic philosophy -- is no longer appropriate. So there are a number of attempts to formulate an analogous doctrine using a newer philosophical vocabulary. I agree with you that no such formulation has won (or deserved) wide approval within the Church. But I think there are a reasonable number of people who believe that eventually such a thing is going to be needed. I am convinced that the ideas the Trinity was intended to defend are important ones, but that for most of our church members today that Trinity doesn't do a very good job. With enough historical study, one can see why the doctrine came to be adopted, and I think most people agree that the alternatives would have been disasterous to Christianity. But I'm not convinced that "one substance with three hypostases" has much significance to our lives as Christians. I have some ideas as to what we might use in its place, but that goes beyond what is appropriate for me to say as moderator. --clh]