Archived
Post
|
Five
Simple Mistakes - and How to Avoid Them
Before launching an attack on the Trinity, it is
essential that we understand how the Trinity is
defined, where it came from, how it developed into
the form that is commonly taught today, how it is
defended, why it is problematic, and on what basis
it may be reasonably criticised. Many anti-Trinitarians
– including some Christadelphians – make the mistake
of assuming that the Trinity is a simple concept,
which may be easily refuted by an appeal to basic
proof texts. This is a dangerous fallacy. The Trinity
is a highly complex doctrine with an ancient legacy
of church tradition and academic support. We must
ensure that we have done our homework before approaching
the subject.
I have seen enthusiastic anti-Trinitarians hurling
themselves into a theological debate, armed with
nothing more than a few passages of Scripture and
a vague idea that “the Trinity is just plain wrong”.
In seconds, their basic argument is demolished,
their ignorance of the doctrine exposed, and their
credibility cut to ribbons by a masterful counter-offensive.
The lesson is simple: we cannot expect to succeed
unless we know exactly who the enemy is and what
weapons he has at his disposal.
Anti-Trinitarians often fail to prove their case
because (a) they just don’t know enough about the
Trinity and (b) their understanding of the Trinity
is flawed.
The most common errors are:
- Assuming
that Trinitarians believe in three gods.
- Assuming
that if Jesus is God, he must also be the Holy
Spirit, etc.
- Assuming
that a simple appeal to the original Greek or
Hebrew will be enough to refute the Trinitarian
position.
- Assuming
that acceptance of the Trinity constitutes tacit
approval of Catholicism.
- Assuming
that the Trinity is based upon paganism.
Firstly, the Trinity is not a doctrine
of three gods. It is a doctrine of one
god who consists of three persons.
Secondly, the Trinity teaches that although all
the three persons of the Godhead are all God,
they each exist as separate identities.
Thirdly, the Greek and Hebrew do not always -
of themselves alone - provide us with a ready-made
refutation. Each word must be read in context,
and cross-referenced with other occurrences of
that word in Scripture.
Fourthly, Trinitarians come in many different
flavours, most of which are not Catholic. Drawing
connections between Catholicism and Trinitarianism
and then accusing Trinitarian Protestants of “guilt
by association”, is (a) a pointless exercise,
and (b) a fallacy of equivocation. (Protestant
Trinitarians don't care about the "Catholic
connection" - and in any case, you're simply
being rude by trying to suggest that they've
accepted a uniquely "Catholic" concept.)
Fifthly, the historical record of Trinitarianism
clearly shows that it did not begin as
a pagan idea.
Identify Your Foe
In order for the non-Trinitarian to succeed in
his debates, he must first know his enemy. By
ensuring that he has a correct understanding of
his opponent's position, he will not waste
time with irrelevant arguments.
Anyone who has spent a considerable amount of
time debating Trinitarians will know that it is
possible to ask a question and receive two entirely
different answers from two different Trinitarians.
Some will agree with your interpretation of a
proof text; others will reject it out of hand.
Some will dip into the Old Testament for their
proof texts; others will use the NT only. Some
will be Sola Scriptura; others will make
reference to "sacred tradition", citing the works
of the Early Church Fathers. (Still others will
avoid using proof texts at all!)
We see therefore that not all Trinitarians are
the same - and by extension, we realise that not
all Trinitarians can be approached in exactly
the same way. But how do they differ -
and how can you tell? What makes one Trinitarian
different from another? Are their differences
reflective of a consistent theological pattern,
or are they purely coincidental? Above all: is
it important to know the differences between Trinitarians?
The simple answer to all of these questions is
"Yes, there are consistent differences between
Trinitarians, and they can be easily identified.
These differences are themselves the result of
different epistemological backgrounds, different
exegetical methods, different hermeneutics and
different denominations."
All Trinitarians can be classified into three
basic groups. These will be defined in subsequent
posts.
The Type I Trinitarian
The Type I Trinitarian believes that the Trinity
is partially revealed (some will say "strongly hinted
at") in the OT, and properly revealed in the NT.
He sees the Trinity everywhere (even in his
breakfast cereal.) If his exegesis results in a
Scriptural contradiction, he will argue that the
NT takes precedence over the OT, because in his
opinion:
- The
OT authors didn't really know what they
were writing (even though God was inspiring
them to write it.)
- The
people of the OT didn't understand the "hints"
of "tri-unity" that God was dropping all over
the place, which is why their Christology fails
to reflect the "tri-unity" of God.
- The
inevitable consequence of these two problems
(above) is that the OT does not contain an articulated
doctrine of the Trinity, although it does support
the concept of the triune god when carefully
examined through the "enlightened" eyes of a
Christian.
This allows him to re-interpret OT passages which
are cited in the NT and claim that they are being
"re-applied" or "extended" to meet the particular
requirements of his Christology.
Examples of Type I Trinitarian proof texts include:
- Genesis
1:26 - "Let us make man in our
image..."
- Psalm
45:6 -"Thy throne, O God, is forever
and ever..."
- Isaiah
9:6 - "For unto us a child is born, unto
us a son is given: and the government shall
be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be
called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
- Micah
5:2.
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be
little among the thousands of Judah, yet out
of thee shall he come forth unto me that is
to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth
have been from of old, from everlasting.
Blatant abuse of context is the normative hermeneutic
for Type I Trinitarians.
The Type II Trinitarian
The Type II Trinitarian takes the middle road.
He argues:
- That
the Trinity is not at all revealed in the OT
(though some will say that the "concepts" or
"blueprints" are there.)
- That
the Trinity is not quite fully revealed in the
NT (though all will say that the deity of Christ
is clearly articulated there.)
He rejects some (but not necessarily all)
of the proof texts which the Type I Trinitarian
supports (especially those which are taken from
the OT), because he believes that the NT brought
a "new revelation" about Christ, which was unknown
by the OT authors.
His arguments are usually established on the following
predicates:
- The
"doctrinal development" hypothesis - that
doctrine develops over time, being defined piece
by piece, rather than being taught as a complete
whole, right from the start.
- The
"new covenant" hypothesis - that the Christians
(being part of the new covenant) have replaced
the Jews as God's chosen people, and have
received a revelation about God (to whit, His
alleged tri-unity) which the Jews were incapable
of receiving.
- The
"new revelation" hypothesis - that the work
of Christ necessarily resulted in a new doctrine
of Christ and therefore a new Christology. This
Christology could never have been known before
this time because it could never have been taught
before this time - and it could not have been
taught before this time because nobody could
have understood it without the immediate context
of Christ's ministry. In other words, this
"new revelation" that the Jewish Messiah was
actually God, could only be taught at a time
when the alleged "God-man" was on Earth to teach
it and ensure that his followers understood
it.
It is important to realise that the second predicate
is not universal. There are many Type II
Trinitarians who believe that the Jews were not
displaced by the Christians, whilst still believing
that they (the Jews) could not have received the
message of the triune god (for whatever reason.)
Phillip Schaff was a classic example of a Type II
Trinitarian, rejecting the alleged Christological
significance of Genesis 1:26, and arguing
that the the deity of Christ was not taught (or
even suggested) before the NT.
Standard Type II Trinitarian proof texts include:
- Matthew
1:23.
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall
bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God
with us.
- Matthew
9:2.
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick
of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing
their faith said unto the sick of the palsy;
Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven
thee.
- John
8:58.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
- Colossians
2:9.
For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the
fullness of the Godhead bodily.
The Type III Trinitarian (Part I)
As the most sophisticated product of the Trinitarian
evolutionary tree, the Type III Trinitarian is even
more cautious in his approach to the Scriptures
than the Type II Trinitarian.
Here he follows the advice of Metzger and Coogan
(both Trinitarian scholars) in the Oxford Companion
to the Bible, where they write:
While there are other New Testament texts where
God, Jesus, and the Spirit are referred to in
the same passage (e.g., Jude 20-21), it
is important to avoid reading the Trinity into
places where it does not appear.
An example is 1 Peter 1.1-2.
The Type III Trinitarian rejects many
of the standard Trinitarian proof texts (even those
found in the NT.) He argues that the deity of Christ
was not fully revealed until after
the zenith of the 1st Century Christian community,
while the Trinity itself took centuries to develop.
Stepping confidently beyond Scripture in search
of his "proofs", he frequently transcends the Bible
in favour of the Early Church Fathers. His argument
tends to be more historical than Biblical.
The Type III Trinitarian freely embraces the work
of the Hellenists (Martyr, Athenagoras, Origen,
Tertullian, etc.) as the next logical step in the
study of Scripture, bringing clarity to the NT in
a way that the apostles could not (or so he believes.)
Like the Type II Trinitarian, he always interprets
the OT through the lens of the NT, presuming:
- That
the OT cannot stand by itself.
- That
the Messianic statements of the OT must be "extended"
by the light which is shed on them by the NT.
In theory, this may sound quite reasonable. But
in practice, it means that he superimposes his interpretation
of the NT onto the OT (a sort of reverse-exegesis)
and concludes that whatever
the OT means, it must
mean the same as his interpretation
of the NT.
To put it another way:
- He
uses the NT to interpret the OT.
- He
uses the Early Church Fathers to interpret the
NT.
- Having
satfisfied himself that his interpretation of
the NT is the correct one, he then examines
the OT for places where it appears to conflict
with his interpretation of the NT, and "corrects"
it by reinterpreting it in such a way as to
conform with his interpretation of the NT.
To be fair, this is the standard approach among
Trinitarians, regardless of which "Type" they
belong to. (A possible exception is the Type I
Trinitarian, who relies far less on the Early
Church Fathers than the Type II or III.) But let
the reader judge if this is how God intended us
to study His Word...
As with the Type I & II Trinitarians, the Type
III Trinitarian interprets the NT through the
lens of Hellenic philosophy, superimposing unBiblical
terms onto carefully-selected proof texts. But
in contrast to them, his argument relies almost
entirely
on the "doctrinal development" hypothesis, the
"new revelation" hypothesis, and frequently (though
not always) on the "Scripture is not inerrant,
but the essential message remains untainted" hypothesis.
The Type III Trinitarian (Part II)
The Type III Trinitarian subscribes to a Christology
that is built on a broad foundation of general
principles, rather than a handful of proof texts
(as the Type I and II Trinitarians are so fond of
doing.) Far from relying on Biblical passages to
support his dogma, he is often a staunch opponent
of Sola Scriptura, avoiding the proof text
method altogether and arguing:
- That
proof-texting is too subjective a method for
the definition of doctrine.
- That
a proof-text debate favours the superior debator,
rather than the superior argument.
- That
proof-texting is a pointless exercise anyway,
since there is no direct evidence in Scripture
for the central planks of Trinitarian Christology.
("It was", he will claim, "a later, extra-Biblical
revelation; a divine mystery, graciously bestowed
upon the fathers of the Church by Almighty God.")
With this in mind, it should come as no surprise
to us that Type III Trinitarians appear most frequently
among the ranks of the older, more traditional denominations
- particularly those with a hierarchy and a high
regard for church tradition.
Thus:
- Karl
Rahner - Catholic.
- Adolf
Harnack - Lutheran.
- H.
A. W. Meyer - Lutheran.
- Stuart
G. Hall - Presyberian.
- J.
A. T. Robinson - Anglican.
- Michael
Schmaus - Catholic.
- Edmund
Fortman - Catholic.
- John
Calvin (who tended to slide back and forth between
the Type II and Type III positions) - Calvinist.
For the reasons already given, it is not possible
to show an example of a standard Type III Trinitarian
proof text. Instead, we must look to standard Type
III Trintiarian statements as an example
of their approach to Scripture and the conclusions
they derive from it.
Thus:
- The
Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or
by necessary implication of a Triune God who
is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is
no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected
the existence of a [Trinity] within the
Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament
suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’
of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the
words and intent of the sacred writers...
The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person;
nor is there any solid evidence that any Old
Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy
Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics
and in Acts as a divine force or power. ...
Although this spirit is often described in personal
terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred
writers never conceived or presented this spirit
as a distinct person.
Fortman, Edmund J. (1972), The Triune
God, Baker Book House, pp. xv, 8, 9.
- The
mystery of the Trinity, as God has told it to
us, is the mystery of three divine persons,
really distinct, in one and the same divine
nature: coequal, coeternal, consubstantial,
one God. Of these persons, the Second proceeds
from the First by an eternal generation; the
Third proceeds from the First and the Second
by an eternal spiration.
There is absolutely no way in which we could
have come to this knowledge of ourselves. It
had to be told us by God. It is told vaguely,
dimly in the obscure words of the Old Testament,
as though to prepare the mind for the terrific
impact of so great a truth; then, in the New
Testament, there is the clear statement both
of the trinity of persons and their identity
of nature; finally, in the declarations of the
Church, the mystery is stated with a clear-cut
brevity that staggers the mind. This is the
only source of our knowledge of the Blessed
Trinity -- - the authority of God -- only God
could know of it, only God could tell of it;
He has told us and we bend our minds in humbly
grateful belief.
[...]
The Trinity is a mystery; no doubt about it.
Unless we had been told of its existence, we
would never have suspected such a thing. Moreover,
now that we know that there is a Trinity, we
cannot understand it. The man who attempts to
unravel the mystery is in the position of a
near-sighted man straining his eyes from the
Eastern Shore of Maryland for a glimpse of Spain.
We cannot probe the depths of the ocean of divinity
with the foot-rule of the human intellect.
Farrell, Walter (1938-1942), A Companion
to the Summa.
- The
doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in
the OT ... It is not, as already seen, directly
and immediately the word of God. ... The formulation
'one God in three persons' was not solidly
established, certainly not fully assimilated
into Christian life and its profession of faith,
prior to the end of the 4th century. But it
is precisely this formulation that has first
claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among
the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing
even remotely approaching such a mentality or
perspective.
New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967 edition,
Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 304.)
For further examples, see here.
Seven
Simple Techniques - and How to Employ Them
- Familiarise
yourself with the Five Simple Mistakes.
And avoid them.
- Dispense
with irrelevant arguments and avoid straw man
fallacies.
There is no point in presenting (or attacking)
an argument which has no bearing on your opponent's
position. For example, do not defend Sola
Scriptura unnecessarily, and do not accuse
him of accepting "Catholic doctrines" just because
he believes in the Trinity.
- Do
not respond with piecemeal rebuttals; present
whole arguments and complete counter-arguments.
Responding with a half-finished rebuttal is
dangerous; you may have overlooked something,
and you may soon regret it. The context of an
opponent's argument can sometimes be neglected
if you fail to address it as a whole. This will
expose you to accusations of unfair tactics,
and erode your credibility in the eyes of your
opponent. In worst case scenarios, it can leave
you with a patchwork rebuttal which simply does
not hold together.
- Do
not allow yourself to be arbitrarily categorised.
Familiarise yourself with the basic Christological
definitions (see here
)
and refuse to accept any definition which does
not accurately represent your views. For example,
if you're not an Arian, nobody should be
calling you "Arian"; if you're not a Universalist
Unitarian, nobody should be calling you a Universalist
Unitarian. You must be particuarly firm on this
point. By the same token, avoid misrepresenting
your opponent. Turnabout is fair play.
- Do
not allow yourself to be intimidated by vast
amounts of material.
Take a little time to distinguish the relevant
from the irrelevant, point out the irrelevant,
explain why you have no intention of addressing
it, and start work on the relevant. If this
takes time, do it anyway. If it takes more time
than you have immediately available, make an
agreement with your opponent and work on it
in stages until you have finished. It is important
to let your opponent know that you cannot be
defeated by sheer quantity. Quality is everything
- and if his argument does not consist of quality
material, his argument will not stand.
- Where
necessary, adapt your style of argument to match
your opponent's views - but do not compromise
your argument for the sake of achieving a temporal
consensus.
The following guidelines may be helpful. Bear
in mind that they are to be used only as a general
rule of thumb; they are by no means universal:
- If
he is a Type I Trinitarian, be prepared
for a myriad of proof texts from all over
the place. These will be presented as examples
of "Places where Jesus is called 'God'",
or "Places where the Bible teaches that
God is more than one person." Take careful
note of any logical fallacies, and seek
to preclude an argument on the basis of
these alone. It will spare you a great deal
of unnecessary debate.
- If
he is a Type II Trinitarian, be prepared
for a systematic argument which combines
OT proof texts with NT proof texts and occasionally
draws on the Early Church Fathers. Be on
your guard for the "We must interpret the
OT with the NT" fallacy, and take steps
to counteract it. (Powerful ammunition can
be found in the Pauline epistles - particularly
in the book of Hebrews.)
- If
he is a Type III Trinitarian, be prepared
for a heavy assault on your OT proof texts
and a complex discussion of early Church
history (with particular reference to the
Arian debate of the 4th Century.) Don't
allow yourself to be drawn into a false
sense of security by the fact that his argument
makes little use of Scripture. This does
not necessarily assist your case, since
you will be required to address the history
in detail. Exchanges with Type III Trinitarians
almost invariably descend into epistemological
debates (i.e. debates concerning one's
basis of belief.) Make sure that you know
exactly what this involves.
- If
he rejects Sola Scriptura, it is
best to inform him that you have no intention
of debating the Trinity unless he agrees
to present arguments on the basis of Scripture
alone. If he will not do this, tell him
that there will be no debate without consensus
on that point. Debates in which one party
employs Sola Scriptura while the
other does not, are (for the most part)
entirely fruitless. You will be talking
past each other for 90% of the time, and
screaming in frustration for the remaining
10%.
- Do
not allow your opponent to advance a point unchallenged.
For example, if he says...
"The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all called
God; Phil. 1:2 John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9 Acts 5:3-4."
...stop to examine every proof text in turn.
If a proof text does not say what he claimed
it would say, point this out and ask him to
replace this proof text with another.
For example, if he says...
"This verse tells us that Jesus is eternal."
...don't just agree with him - ask yourself
if you believe that this is what the
verse is saying. Even if you can see how he
arrived at this conclusion, remind him that
he still has to vindicate it.
Thus:
"Where does it say that Jesus is eternal?
I don't see this written anywhere. Which
particular word are you taking your argument
from, anyway? Does this have something to do
with the Greek?"
Do this until he has provided a list of proof
texts which actually contain the statements
which he himself has made. Then address yourself
to those texts. If you are presented with a
long list of ready-made proof texts (as is frequently
the case), just grit your teeth and wade through
them all. Remember, even though he has presented
them, the onus is still on your opponent to
explain them. He must prove that they
are necessarily related, confirm that they are
not contradictory, knit them together as a unified
whole, and support his Christology with an appeal
to the finished product.
One of the quickest ways to lose a debate is
to accept your opponent's mindset as valid
(even if you are only doing so for the sake
of the argument) and read his proof texts in
the context of that mindset. Understanding
his point of view is perfectly legitimate; indulging
it is not. If you indulge it, you (a) reduce
the force of your argument, (b) leave room for
your opponent to slide insupportable premises
into his side of the debate, and © render your
own proof texts redundant.
A classic example is John 1:1, 14. Trinitarians
seize upon the words "...and the word was God",
then leap immediately to verse 14: "...the word
was made flesh." By pole-vaulting over the context
in between these two verses, they hope to prove
that Jesus is "God-made-flesh", thereby vindicating
the incarnation. If we ignore such an equivocation,
we effectively grant it our tacit support. And
what is the result of this indulgence? Well,
if we have allowed that Jesus is the "word"
referred to in verse 1, and we have allowed
that Jesus is also the "word made flesh" of
verse 14, then we have left ourselves absolutely
no room for debate... and the Trinitarian has
already won. (Checkmate!)
But let us stop for a moment and consider the
two verses in the light of their respective
contexts. Why should we accept that the
Johannine prologue can be reduced to verses
1 & 14? Why should we accept that verse
1 refers to Jesus, when in fact there is absolutely
no mention made of him here? Why should
we accept that by wrenching two entirely unrelated
verses out of their respective contexts and
slapping them together, the Trinitarian has
proved his claim? Why should we ignore
the clear delineation between "the word" (a
simple concept) and the "word-made-flesh" (a
complex one)? That is a fallacy of equivocation.
It would be like reading "furniture" every time
we read the word "wood." It just doesn't
work. (Check, block/counter-check and checkmate!)
Instead of indulging your opponent's position
(i.e. just ignoring it and hoping that you'll
agree on something else), run it through a mental
checklist:
- Is
it Scriptural? (By which I mean derived
from, and/or predicated upon,
Scripture.)
- Is
it rational?
- Is
it logical?
Any theological argument, premise or mindset
which fails to meet all of these criteria,
can be safely rejected. Any interpretation of
Scripture which is predicated on the assumption
that these criteria can be legitimately transcended,
must necessarily be false.
|
