0

Although I think Unitarianism is a much more elegant explanation of what is happening in scripture, at the same time I'm sympathetic to Trinitarian claims that ultimately the nature of God is mysterious, and so our language and logic can't be expected to map straightforwardly onto it.

Following on this, someone might say that Trinitarianism might be true, but it is theological speculation. Is there a name for this sort of position?

Note that in this case, the question is directed toward Trinitarian belief in specific, and doesn't necessarily hold an agnosticism regarding it, but merely allows it's possible it's correct.

Only True God
  • 6,628
  • 1
  • 18
  • 55
  • 1
    Related: Is there a name for a category of Christians who lack a doctrinal position in the debate about God's nature? –  Feb 05 '22 at 23:15
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator It's close, and relevant, but a bit different. In this case, the question is directed toward Trinitarian belief in specific, and doesn't necessarily hold an agnosticism regarding it, but merely allows it's possible it's correct. – Only True God Feb 05 '22 at 23:27
  • @GratefulDisciple Relevant but not quite the same. See above comment to SRI. – Only True God Feb 05 '22 at 23:27
  • 1
    @OneGodtheFather OK. Removed close vote. But I doubt there is a good answer to this question because most Christians only use the concept to guide Christian practice and spirituality just like we don't really care about the 100% correctness of our working "definition" of our spouses but only use it to ground belief, practice, and relationship with them. As you well know, the definition came about to battle heresies that use distorting definition to ground their "off" practices. – GratefulDisciple Feb 05 '22 at 23:38
  • @GratefulDisciple - I'm curious about the "off" practices. What "off" practices were being grounded by distorted notions of God's nature that prompted the formalization of the doctrine of the Trinity? –  Feb 06 '22 at 00:05
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator That's a good question. I'll let you know next year as one goal for me this year is to study the history of the first 300 years of Christianity from multiple angles; the development of the concept of Trinity as one major theme along with: canon formation, authority structure, sacramental practices, worship & prayer, social praxis, morality, monasticism, saint & relic, communion of saints and prayer to/for the dead, etc. – GratefulDisciple Feb 06 '22 at 00:16
  • @GratefulDisciple I would largely agree with you here re concepts used to guide practice. That's right. I would also be interested in what practices were 'off'. The biggest (supposed) one I can think of off-hand was worshiping someone who wasn't God (i.e., Jesus). Trinitarianism solved this 'problem' by moving Jesus inside the Godhead. – Only True God Feb 06 '22 at 19:41
  • @OneGodTheFather Yes, that's exactly the solution. Patristics and NT exegetical study should be able to show whether the apostles indeed worshipped Jesus as God from very early (we are talking less than a decade after ascension), which then justified the slow development of the Trinity. We also need to show that the early church continually maintained this worship. – GratefulDisciple Feb 09 '22 at 12:23
  • @GratefulDisciple I have no doubt that early Christians worshiped Jesus. The relevant question, as you say, is whether they worshiped him as God or ... a King, ruling at the right-hand of God. Which one was original? Or did they both spring up very early? If worship-as-King was first or simultaneous, there's a lot of weight to move to show it was 'off', I think. – Only True God Feb 09 '22 at 21:36
  • @OneGodtheFather I call one of my key witness to the witness stand: Apostolic father St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 108 AD), his Epistle to the Ephesians where he says about Jesus in Chapter 19: " ... God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life." In other writings, he's very clear that Jesus is God incarnate, see this paper. – GratefulDisciple Feb 09 '22 at 22:08
  • @GratefulDisciple Yes, and that particular text has a long and short form, and various people have argued they should be rejected. But let's grant for sake of argument it is authentic and says what you think it says. You have then established there was one 2nd century theologian who held that view. I would much rather just read the NT and see what broad and clear outlines I get from that. The NT has the magi worshiping Jesus as a King. There's little doubt this is how the magi understood Him. NT >>> Iggy of Antioch, whatever we make of his (?) writings. – Only True God Feb 09 '22 at 22:18
  • @OneGodtheFather Your magi evidence is not applicable here, since we both accept that Jesus is also worshipped as King, being a descendant of David. At least we agree that there needs to be a continuous trail of evidence from NT to Nicaea of apostles + church fathers writing clearly show how the early church worship Jesus as God as well as king, etc. I hope you (as judge of the court who determines the admissibility of evidence) can accept: that writings about God-incarnate also count toward showing how Jesus was viewed as having pre-existence as God. – GratefulDisciple Feb 09 '22 at 22:43
  • @GratefulDisciple I certainly agree that Iggy of Antioch supports the view that early on in some in the church viewed Jesus as God. Indeed, he's the early writer Trinitarians turn to. But what of Pope Clement, say? My view is that all sorts of views probably sprung up fairly quickly in Christendom, and > 70 years (all the Apostles are dead) is enough to get significant distortions of the original meanings. But we have to remember Jesus himself referred to the judges are gods, and this text is ambiguous (God or god?). ... – Only True God Feb 09 '22 at 23:21
  • ... You have various problems in terms of what these people mean. Moses was God to Pharaoh in Exodus. The judges were gods in the Psalms. Jesus is the Son of God, and so in some way is uniquely divine vis a vis other humans. He is also the icon of the Father - when you see Him, you see the Father. What did Iggy mean exactly, and how did that transfer to his conception of proper worship? I dunno. So is what he's saying here good evidence that worshiping Jesus 'merely' as an ascended King who sits at the right hand of God, is a mediator with God, and has been given all authority, is 'off'? – Only True God Feb 09 '22 at 23:26
  • @OneGodtheFather The Moses and the Psalm answers are relatively easy: 1) Pharaoh's theology is not Israelite theology; we cannot equate Moses's role in the eyes of Pharaoh to Jesus's role in the eyes of the rulers of Jerusalem (objection, your Honor: evidence inadmissible); 2) gods in Ps 82:6 should not be interpreted as judges, see Heiser's interpretation. As for the rest, I'm sure there are already answers to your questions. But at this point, may I file a motion for continuance of this hearing to next year, your Honor? – GratefulDisciple Feb 09 '22 at 23:51
  • @GratefulDisciple I'm not sure why thinking of the gods in Ps. 82 as 'divine beings' detracts from the point. The relevant word has multiple meanings in ancient Greek. Is Jesus being described by Iggy as God, icon of God, or god? Here's another question. Is it 'off' to worship the Son if He's 'subsidiary' to the Father? With that, case adjourned! – Only True God Feb 09 '22 at 23:57

2 Answers2

2

The term you are looking for might be "theological possibility" (at least that's a term used by Catholics about their own non-doctrinal beliefs).

Or:

  1. Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be … .

— The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised

Or:

In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was “only a theological hypothesis” and “never a defined truth of faith”.

In the Divine Comedy, Dante placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo. The Catholic Church’s official catechism, issued in 1992 after decades of work, dropped the mention of limbo.

— Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries | Reuters

Ray Butterworth
  • 8,441
  • 1
  • 13
  • 40
  • There's no way Catholic speculation about a possible Limbo can be compared with emphatic, dogmatic teaching on the doctrine of the Trinity! Those who think trinitarian doctrine is not necessarily wrong, but is theological speculation are merely hedging their bets. That's what I would call it. They are certainly not calling a spade a spade! – Anne Feb 07 '22 at 14:14
  • @Anne, I think the question was asked from a non-Trinitarian perspective. I.e. how should someone that doesn't accept the Trinity as an absolute truth, but concedes that it might be possible, refer to it. – Ray Butterworth Feb 08 '22 at 01:37
  • Indeed, your comment above is entirely true. But your answer gave an illustration that indicates trying to compare lumps of coal with apples. This happens a lot with people who are sitting on the fence (no matter how sincerely) with regard to the Trinity doctrine. So, in addition to my saying they are hedging their bets, they are also sitting on the fence. Which are not words the PO would wish to use, so there's no point in my offering an answer. I just say this with regard to your own answer, in a kindly, but frank manner. I believe in calling a spade a spade. – Anne Feb 08 '22 at 11:21
2

Short answer

From the choices offered in this article and others, if you still truly believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior, all these choices are NOT acceptable:

  • Monotheism is too generic (might be mistaken for adherent of Islam / Judaism)
  • Theism is even more so (too generic)
  • Deism is too impersonal
  • Agnostic Theism is too skeptical
  • Fideism: faith divorced from reason

Better take your choice from a variety of non-trinitarian labels according to the one you are most convinced at that particular time: Adoptionism, Apollinarism, Arianism, Modalistic Monarchianism / Oneness Christology, Nestorianism, Sabellianism, Socinianism, Swedenborgian, Unitarianism, etc.

Coping with intellectual skepticism

I am offering this answer only as an aid to a willing Trinitarian Christian but who struggles intellectually to reconcile some academic difficulties with his / her faith. If there is at least a desire to trust IN a God who is potentially Trinitarian (with all the ethical and spiritual commitments that follow), then the cognitive doubt ABOUT this God can be categorized as "faith seeking understanding", which Christians across ages since St. Augustine have recognized, sympathized, and developed ways of coping.

Doubt about the Trinity is closely related to doubt of the incarnation of God as Jesus to save us (John 3:16, the famous verse), which is why the Trinitarian concept of God is so indispensable to Christianity. Rejecting this can bleed over to other areas of the faith. For example:

  • If Jesus was not also fully God, how does he have the right to forgive sin, how does he have the power to save us and defeat Satan's attacks today and at the end of age?
  • If Jesus was not fully human, how could he fulfill what Adam failed to do for us, how could he fulfill the Mosaic covenant for us, and how could he be a prototype of a human who received a resurrected body which we hope to have one day?
  • If God only sent a messenger (ex. angel Michael) instead of His Son (who is Himself) how can God avoid the charge that He doesn't do what he preach: the ideal of self-sacrificial love?

Because this is so central, doubt about the Trinity is of a different order of magnitude compared to other doubts, for example doubting whether creation happened literally in six days. As long as we are certain that God created the universe ex nihilo (thus ensuring the belief that there is no God greater than the Christian God, and that God is outside creation) this doubt is relatively unimportant. But doubt about the Trinity needs to be resolved as soon as possible, as this can be seen as a critical illness of the cognitive aspect of our faith.

If you are this person, then you are a good candidate to receive benefit from this 2021 Christian Scholar's Review journal article by M. Elizabeth Lewis Hall, a Christian professor of Psychology at Rosemead School of Psychology at Biola University, an evangelical institution: Teaching Students to Doubt Well: The Roles of Intellectual Humility and Uncertainty Tolerance. Although the article uses the apparent conflict between science and faith as a sample application, I believe the same analysis and technique can be used for skepticism caused by trying to reconcile biblical data with Trinitarian concept. Thus,

  • explicit knowledge = understanding and acceptance of Trinitarian theology (logical part of our reason)
  • implicit knowledge = brain imprint of a soul who trusts in the Trinitarian God (faith + unconscious reason)

In the article she expounds on these topics:

  • explicit knowledge (logical, linear, language-based, like subscribing to Nicene creed) vs. implicit knowledge (non-linear, emotional, sub-symbolic, image-based, largely outside of conscious awareness)
  • how in the brain there is a priority of implicit system (emphasis mine):

    The brain sends information from its emotional centers that evaluate meaning and process our experiences (the implicit knowledge system) to the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s executive center (where we process explicit knowledge).18 Interestingly, the opposite is not true; the prefrontal cortex sends comparatively little input to the emotional centers of the brain. It is largely a one-way road. We are aware of our explicit knowledge system and we can direct it, but, by and large, we cannot direct the implicit knowledge system.

  • how the non-biological portion of the cognitive structure for implicit knowledge is built primarily through relationships whereas explicit knowledge is built primarily through cultural forces (such as the Enlightenment conception of universe)
  • dual nature of faith: propositional (explicit knowledge) and fidelity/commitment/trust (implicit knowledge)
  • two kinds of doubt (cognitive dissonance or Enlightenment philosophy's "denigration of knowledge that is gained through implicit, affective, and relational means")
  • two psychological dispositions/capacities:
    • intellectual humility: recognizing our cognitive limitation to make cognitive tensions (such as explicit doubting) less threatening, thus enabling us to reject the Enlightenment idea of autonomous rationality as counterproductive, but instead encouraging us to foster exploration of competing hypotheses. Example: how Internet makes one a lot more aware of competing belief systems.
    • uncertainty tolerance: using implicit knowledge to tolerate ambiguity (due to complexity, or indeterminate future events) which may manifest itself as negative psychological responses (cognitive, emotional, or behavioral). Example: worry from perceived discrepancy between religion and science.
  • Pedagogical strategies for addressing doubt:
    • overcoming the automatic "one-way flow" between implicit and explicit systems by doing referential activity through a process of linking feelings and words in 3 phases: arousal ⟶ symbolizing ⟶ reorganization/reflection
    • through relationships: professors sharing to students how they cope with uncertainty through personal narratives rich with relationship with God, disciplinary integrity and intellectual humility
    • through images: becoming aware of our "pictures" / "social imaginary" / "worldview" which represent deeply held assumptions and unexamined beliefs associated with the emotional realm of intrinsic knowledge, and THEN the use of contrasting images so that our picture can be loosen from the associated feeling if the connection is not healthy
    • through narratives: exposing students to stories of scientists who have been successful at bringing together their faith and their science, as well as encouraging students to narrate their own struggles as a way to assist in their resolution

Conclusion

It is my fervent hope that aided by the journal article above, your journey to rediscover Trinitarian Christianity afresh can be fruitful, as one of many who has undergone successfully (for now, by the grace of God) the journey of faith seeking understanding.

GratefulDisciple
  • 23,032
  • 5
  • 31
  • 96
  • "Because this is so central, doubt about the Trinity is of a different order of magnitude" This is the place where you lose me. Consider the first example of this you give, "If Jesus was not also fully God, how does he have the right to forgive sin" You seem to suggest this forms some kind of large obstacle, but it doesn't. U's say God has given Jesus the authority (as Jesus Himself states). There's no significant intellectual issue here. ... – Only True God Feb 09 '22 at 21:17
  • ... "how can God avoid the charge that He doesn't do what he preach: the ideal of self-sacrificial love" Similarly, this is an issue, but why does this constitute an issue that is of another magnitude? Trinitarians themselves are famous for debating different theories about the atonement. This seems like a minor issue - larger would be why a sacrifice would be required at all, it seems (ought we to require a sacrifice before we forgive someone?). But either way, this is an issue in general, not something that directly hinges on whether one is a Trinitarian or not. – Only True God Feb 09 '22 at 21:19
  • @OneGodtheFather "ought we to require a sacrifice before we forgive someone?" No, even God forgives us first. This is about John 15:13 ("There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.") within the context of union with Christ (John 15) where Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. Maybe I should have put this up as an example, since how can we have union with Christ that infuses grace into us if he is not God? Not everyone is called for this, but those that do can look up to Jesus. – GratefulDisciple Feb 09 '22 at 21:43
  • I don't quite follow what you're saying in the first part, but "how can we have union with Christ that infuses grace into us if he is not God" Again, I don't see why this is a big intellectual issue. Jesus is connected to God, and in turn we can be connected to Jesus. I think this is pretty clearly laid out in John. Jesus abides in the Father, and we in turn can abide in Jesus. Indeed, it sure sounds to me like that's what Jesus is saying. Might there be some intellectual issues arising from this? Of course. But is it at 'another magnitude' from all sorts of other issues? I don't think so. – Only True God Feb 09 '22 at 22:07
  • 1
    @OneGodtheFather I feel somewhat at a loss how we can see the same verses but draw different conclusions. Obviously we need to agree on the right interpretation matching how the writers would have interpreted their own writing. In other words, ideally we could access their brain to see whether they intended to imply that Jesus claimed to be God or not. But this comment-trail is getting long. Thanks for your input; you gave me some indications what kind of research I need to do to defend Trinitarianism better. – GratefulDisciple Feb 09 '22 at 22:48