1

If a Christian considers that the burden of proof has not been adequately met by any known theological doctrines about God's nature, including mainstream ones such as Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Unitarianism and Modalism, and in the absence of sufficient evidence they decide to withhold judgement and declare themselves to lack a definite position, would any official label apply to them?

Candidate labels I have in mind at the moment include "neutral", "undecided", "uncertain", "still researching", "skeptical but open-minded", and even "agnostic with respect to God's nature", but I'm curious to know if there is anything close to an "official" label out there.

Appendix: examples of questions evidencing the existing debate

  • 3
    'Not quite sure' could mean 'unbelief', in which case 'unbeliever' might be appropriate. I think you need to define the condition more clearly, myself. – Nigel J Sep 24 '21 at 15:40
  • @NigelJ - Do you believe the second coming of Christ will happen within the next 100 years? If you are unsure, does that make you an 'unbeliever'? –  Sep 24 '21 at 16:55
  • 3
    'Not quite sure' relates (in your question) to the Deity. And I am saying that such uncertainty may well fall into the category of unbelief. Your comment about 100 years makes no sense to me and I am not responding to it. – Nigel J Sep 24 '21 at 17:06
  • @NigelJ - 'Not quite sure' relates (in my question) to the Deity's nature, not the Deity itself. Someone could be 100% sure that God exists and yet not be sure of specific details about His nature. To get the point, consider the case of your wife. You are probably 100% sure that your wife exists, yet you might still be unsure of the exact percentage her body is made up of water molecules. The point is: you can believe someone exists and still be able to acknowledge your lack of information preventing you from having a definite stance regarding some specific aspect of their nature. –  Sep 24 '21 at 19:12
  • 4
    An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Would such a person worship, obey and call themself a Christian when they do not know who or what they worship and obey? – Lesley Sep 25 '21 at 08:04
  • @Lesley - See the last edit. –  Sep 25 '21 at 09:08
  • 3
    @SpiritRealmInvestigator All those links are what people do in the armchair / ivory tower, or in my terminology, in the academic track. But in life, there is always a working definition of God's nature behind every one of our decision, which in turn is a moral situation. In life, saying one is "agnostic" is a lie, a self deception. Better be honest saying "I'm a Catholic", "I'm a Mormon", "I'm some "Christian" that I have yet to clarify since I'm not well versed in theology", "I am a new Trinitarian Christian who still need to understand the full implication of Trinity in my life", etc. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 13:07
  • @GratefulDisciple - How would ante-Nicene Christians have defined themselves? –  Sep 25 '21 at 13:14
  • 1
    @SpiritRealmInvestigator I would refer you to their own writings :-) Isn't the oldest refer to themselves as "followers of the way", as "slave of Christ", etc? If I'm right, the original meaning of "Christian" is follower of Christ, isn't it? So the later Nicene definition was merely a communal clarification of what's implicitly already in the back of their consciousness, not a new revelation. They do this to battle rival definitions of God's nature. But outside the council deliberations, they act out their trinitarianism. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 13:19
  • @GratefulDisciple - Couldn't we use a similar argument to defend the doctrine of Intercession of Saints though? The formalization of the doctrine of Intercession of Saints was merely a communal clarification of what's implicitly already in the back of their consciousness, not a new revelation. –  Sep 25 '21 at 13:23
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator Well, I think Catholics are using that argument, usually called lex orandi, lex credendi. The distinction has to do with Scriptural support. God's nature as defined in the Nicene creed can be more Biblically defended than the Intercession of Saints. Same two tracks apply though. Either you pray to the Saints or you don't. If you are in danger, are you going to invoke the Saints? A person's true beliefs is revealed in a crisis, no room for being agnostic. Jesus showed God's nature best from the cross. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 13:42
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator How would ante-Nicene Christians have defined themselves? Another way to answer is to see how fiercely the Arians battled the Trinitarians and the Monophysites vs. Chalcedonians in the past. We tend to see this as a relic of the past, while for them there must be something of practical significance of the nature of God and Jesus that they were fighting like that. I would say that Trinitarians today don't want to be "agnostic" but instead really dig deeper into Trinitarianism and live it out in our Christian life. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 13:54

2 Answers2

5

Christians have been around for 2000 years. We would think surely there is already a label out there that answers your question?

Short answer: Deist is the closest, with Thomas Jefferson as a famous practitioner. No doubt to himself and others, Thomas Jefferson refer to himself as a "Christian", but because this conception of God is detached from day to day Christian practice of love, Deists are not truly Christians.

Answer

There is no such label, since someone who has that skeptical state of mind cannot practice a Christian life worthy of its name, since fundamentally the true Christian life is a costly yet life-saving response to a powerful yet loving being who offers a passage to heaven (salvation). Without being sure of God's nature how can a Christian trusts his life on this being called God? Therefore, skepticism about the nature of God cannot coexist with a flourishing faith life.

Two tracks: Academic vs. Life

One can definitely engage in the academic discipline of theology and philosophy to discuss the merits of various conceptions of God's nature: what are the Scriptural data, the early church fathers writings, the experience of saints, various councils, philosophical terms appropriate to define it, how God's attributes are affected by a definition of God's nature, etc. But this exercise is on a completely different track.

Consider the parallel track of LIFE. When this theologian stands up from the theologian's "arm chair" and deals with his wife, kids, work colleagues, bills, politics, his health, culture, etc. he needs to presume with full confidence a certain understanding of God's nature so he can interface with the people around him as a Christian.

Christian life presumes certainty of the nature of God

Why is it that in this track one cannot be skeptical? Because underlying the love he has for his wife, kids, and neighbors, as a Christian he has to embody (or to image) God's nature in a human form just as Jesus incarnated God's nature as a perfect Adam: a loving, generous, self-sacrificing, uplifting, servant-leader person. That's what it means fundamentally to be a Christian.

God is love. Christianity is all about love. Mormons practice love, although their understanding of God is not standard Trinitarian, because they don't believe that the 3 Persons of the Trinity as one substance. But they are NOT skeptical, and they CANNOT be skeptical in their LIFE track. They are known for their active mission and community support and what undergirds this is their faith in their concept of God.

Profile of a Deist

Yes, I can perfectly see how a skepticism bred by seeing too much uncertainties in the theological academic track can leak into the life track. I have been there. One can be paralyzed into taking no action. But taking no action ITSELF is an action. One cannot be neutral. Let's say this academic speculation insinuates so deeply into REAL life that when interfacing with a being that cannot be turned off, that one cannot run away from, one has to shout in one's head: "I refuse to pray, to ask for your help, to serve you, to carry out your will for the world, etc. until I can satisfactorily define you in my mind. In the meantime I just run my life as if your nature does NOT matter." In that case, maybe the best label for that person is that he is a DEIST, a child of the enlightenment philosophy. I think it's safe to say that all Christian denominations say that a Deist is NOT a Christian. They will be more willing to call a Mormon / or a Jehovah Witness a Christian than a Deist.

Dealing with the two tracks as a Christian

(to be continued)

Another way to answer the question

@NigelJ and @Lesley comments point us to the right direction. My longer answer attempts to show that the label doesn't exist because:

  1. The question itself runs counter to the most fundamental logic in how Christians approach the question "who is God".
  2. Language such as "insufficient burden of proof" causing one to "withhold judgment about God's nature" betrays the questioner's holding an enlightenment philosophy of thinking that eventually one can have certain knowledge about God's nature according to the dictates of reason alone.
  3. The question blithely disregards the purpose of why Christians hold a Trinitarian proposition as a given, which is still a rational act even though it's a given! Understanding the purpose makes one understand why one cannot be a Christian in that state of mind, and thus the question itself becomes irrelevant.

(I decide not to elaborate on this answer, unless there is interest)

GratefulDisciple
  • 23,032
  • 5
  • 31
  • 96
  • 1
    God is love. Christianity is all about love - How does accepting with certainty this axiom of God's nature force you in any way to choose between Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Unitarianism, Modalism, etc.? Why can't you just accept that God is love and withhold judgement for all other controversial, debatable aspects/attributes? –  Sep 25 '21 at 11:22
  • 2
    @SpiritRealmInvestigator Because when you start to investigate "what is this God's love" then you cannot avoid bringing God's nature into the answer. Please read the paper I suggested in my other recent answer. I frame this answer in that you can be Unitarian / LDS / Modalist and loving, but in order to be loving you cannot be a skeptic. You can be a skeptic while in the theologian's arm chair but while you're in that arm chair you are not practicing love. You can also practice love as a non-Christian, but that may not be Christian love. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 11:25
  • Are you suggesting that all Christians, regardless of their doctrinal preference (Unitarian / LDS / JW / Modalist / Trinitarian / Binitarian) are equally capable of Christian love as long as they sincerely believe in their preferred theological doctrines? If so, how can this be reconciliated with the fact that, for example, LDS are not considered to be Christians by most denominations and vice-versa (see e.g. this)? –  Sep 25 '21 at 11:34
  • 2
    @SpiritRealmInvestigator From a Trinitarian standpoint, trinitarian love is the BEST love, the way the perfect human nature is wired, the way to live our full potential, as participating in the God's own inner Trinitarian love. Thus it's very easy to see how defects in understanding God's nature can lead to defects of understanding true love. But it's better to practice a defective conception of love than not at all. I purposely use LDS as an example because they have great reputation to love and I do admire them. The two tracks apply here as well: understanding and practice are different. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 11:41
  • 2
    @SpiritRealmInvestigator It's not a matter of capability. Every human is capable of love. Every human needs God's grace to love well. Does God give grace based on our understanding of God's nature or our willingness to accept it? If one's concept of God's nature is defective but the heart is willing, do you think God will withhold his grace? In this answer I argued that the label "Christian" is a sociological one, so it's not connected to capability nor willingness. But sooner or later, one's understanding of love can affect it. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 11:45
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator There are many atrocities done in the name of love. Of course, among Christians of goodwill, it's less likely to happen, even when those "Christians" are non-Trinitarian. But "Christians" of all stripes don't live out to their ideals. God doesn't judge one's ideal, but one's practice, one's fruits. We have to be fully aware of the two tracks so questions like yours don't confuse yourself. My point is: each track has its own certainty; the life track matters much more and God gives us grace to those who ask while we love the best we can, not from the armchair. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 12:04
  • What are your thoughts on a position such as Dottard's, namely, that we can be certain about God's character but not so certain about His nature? –  Sep 25 '21 at 12:16
  • 3
    @SpiritRealmInvestigator, Just an interjection into this: The Lord knows who are His. A whole company from both "tracks" are going to get "I never knew you" from Jesus because they were never born again. That, and that alone, is what makes a Christian. Without that one cannot even see the kingdom. One cannot know the Father unless one receives the Son. It is the Spirit within that guides into all truth and when our intellects get involved we need fear and trembling. – Mike Borden Sep 25 '21 at 12:20
  • 2
    @SpiritRealmInvestigator I agree that character and nature are different, and yes, we can be a lot more certain of God's character which flows from His nature. We have faith in God's character. The early church debate on God's nature doesn't dispute God's character as loving, just, faithful, etc. So for practical purposes on the "life" track, I recommend focusing on God's character. We need to remember that God does not reveal his full nature to us. That's why this goal of "certainty as philosophical proof" needs to be discarded. What we need is "certainty as trust" which is faith. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 12:31
  • @GratefulDisciple - But that's my point. You can trust God's loving character while withholding judgement about those aspects of His nature that have not been fully revealed just yet. –  Sep 25 '21 at 12:35
  • 1
    @SpiritRealmInvestigator Be careful what you mean by "withholding judgment" though. The language "judgment" implies that God's nature is open for reason alone to investigate, UNLESS by "judgment" there is a willingness to accept that we can only work with the data that God has revealed to various communities of faith in history. The word "yet" is worrisome too, as in mainstream, there is nothing more to be revealed about God's nature. But existentially, Christians cannot have this uncertainty. In life, we have to choose and act on it. It's a working definition, otherwise we're paralyzed. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 12:44
  • The word "yet" is worrisome too, as in mainstream, there is nothing more to be revealed about God's nature - What is the basis for this claim? –  Sep 25 '21 at 12:49
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator If I'm correct, LDS is open for more revelation of God's nature. But for mainstream, canon is closed. Even for Catholics, tradition will NOT include more information about God's nature. Development in Catholic theologies have more to do with rehashing doctrines in "new philosophical skin". For mainstream we have enough data on God's nature (which is Trinitarian) that we need for salvation. There maybe a promise that we can know more about God in heaven, but not in this life. What is the basis? Again, don't use enlightenment mentality. We work with what's given. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 12:53
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator What is the basis for this claim? To answer another way: mainstream believes that Jesus as God's incarnation IS the complete revelation of God's nature. If we want to know more ("know more" means subjectively educating ourselves as in getting to know a person, not waiting to discover new things God might reveal in the future) we interact with Jesus by studying the Bible and communing with Jesus in our heart. Torrance's theology is one way to do this. I'm sure Torrance is not waiting for more revelation. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 12:59
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator IN CONCLUSION, being a Christian is a way of living. As such, you cannot be agnostic. We can speculate while living, thus the notion of two tracks, which is not completely isolated from one another. It's an artful balance that I learned in life the hard way. Your question implies seeking a label in the life track, it does not exist. While speculating in the academic track you can be agnostic, sure, but that's while you're in the armchair (or the ivory tower). When we step out to real life ripe with moral decisions to make, saying one is agnostic is a lie. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 13:02
  • @GratefulDisciple - do you believe in the possibility of private personalized special revelations not meant to become part of a universal canon? –  Sep 25 '21 at 13:07
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator Sure, but let's be clear on the content of such "revelations". I mean it in the way how the Catholic saints receive glimpses of beatific vision. These "revelations" are consistent with God's nature as revealed in Jesus and the Bible. Other possible content is specific direction for my own life. Therefore, I wouldn't use the term "revelation" because it causes misunderstanding. – GratefulDisciple Sep 25 '21 at 13:13
  • +1 for exploring an idea and applying it. "being a Christian is a way of living" I agree with this, but am skeptical of your conclusion. 1. Deist?!? What even. :) No, you can be agnostic about Trinitarianism v. Binitarianism v. Unitarianism while embracing revelation, unlike Deists. But, you would have to hold this distinction isn't that important. Which leads to 2. There are all sorts of aspects of God's nature we are going to be agnostic on (implicitly or otherwise). For example, how exactly is prayer life different for a Tri or U? I'm not certain there's a big difference ... – Only True God Feb 06 '22 at 20:04
  • ... Everyone in the above categories agrees Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. They all agree He sits at the right hand of the Father. They all agree they can pray to the Father in Jesus' name. They all agree Jesus has been given all authority. And so on. – Only True God Feb 06 '22 at 20:06
  • 1
    @OneGodtheFather I reflected on your comments for 1-2 days and decide to leave this answer as it is, since the predominant picture in the OP is that of skepticism. Instead, I wrote an answer to your other question posed as one who still wants to be a Trinitarian but having intellectual difficulty in the "academic track". – GratefulDisciple Feb 08 '22 at 21:11
0

I think the closest term for such a person would be simply monotheist and Christian (if that person holds that Jesus is the Christ).

Perhaps it could be capitalized, "Monotheist", to emphasize a rejection of debates that lead to categories such as Trinitarian, Binitarian, Unitarian, Modalist, and so on.

This sort of position would also fit as an instance of 'non-denominational' or 'non-creedal' Christianity.

Only True God
  • 6,628
  • 1
  • 18
  • 55