Honesty compels me to offer views that won’t be popular but are based on much study and reflection. As I’ll explain, I don’t describe myself either as a Trinitarian or a non-Trinitarian. My purpose isn't to offend anyone or stir the pot just for the sake of stirring it, but hopefully to offer some food for thought.
The history of the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t pretty. People were killed during the debates. The official church position flip-flopped from Trinitarianism to Arianism for a period. “We all became Arians overnight!” one bishop famously said.
In short, the history of the doctrine is one of long political negotiation, intrigue and even violence. Despite the formulation of the doctrine in the Fourth Century creeds (at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople), the details weren’t fully settled for hundreds of years after that (and the filioque dispute over whether the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son resulted in the Great Schism of 1054).
One can certainly believe that the Holy Spirit guided and informed this entire process and the final creeds were inspired by God, but the history gives me pause. It looks very much like a high-level version of the squabbling we see on forums such as this and throughout Christendom every day.
Added to this is the reality that this supposedly essential doctrine isn’t clearly set forth in the Bible. If it were, hundreds of years of debates and multiple heresies wouldn’t have occurred. Scholars such as the late Larry Hurtado have shown that the divinity of Jesus was accepted by the very earliest Christians, and Paul’s writings make clear that this was the case from his quotation of early hymns. The struggle that culminated in the doctrine of the Trinity was over what this divinity meant and how Jesus could have been both human and divine.
I'm not saying it's impossible to derive the Trinity from the Bible, so don't start throwing verses at me. I'm saying the doctrine isn't clearly and unequivocally stated, which seems rather odd for what is supposedly such a core doctrine about the very nature of God. It is likewise possible to derive a very different understanding,
The combination of the dubious history and lack of clear biblical authority gives me great pause. Only by blindly accepting the authority and divine inspiration of the Fourth Century creeds could I convince myself that the Trinity was both ontologically true and a Christian essential. Blind acceptance isn’t my notion of faith.
Then there is the doctrine itself – its substance. The doctrine is easily stated in words, as it is in the creeds, but is it even comprehensible or helpful in any meaningful way? I just finished Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by noted Christian philosophers J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, and I found their efforts to make “philosophical sense” of the Incarnation and the Trinity to be unconvincing and almost depressing.
If it is true, the Trinity is a great mystery. It is something we can only accept, not even pretend to understand. Efforts to explain it, to neatly connect the dots, only make it more puzzling and less believable.
To me, the Christian essentials are that (1) Jesus is the Son of God and (2) his incarnation, death and resurrection were sufficient to accomplish God’s purposes. Perhaps Jesus is divine in the same way that the son of a king is royal without being equivalent to the king. I don’t know and don’t believe I need to know. Is it essential to accept the Trinity in order to “believe in Jesus” and what he accomplished? I don’t believe so.
As I’ve matured, both in age and as a Christian, I’ve grown increasingly independent. I’m not going to pretend to believe things just because supposed authorities tell me I must believe them or a majority of other Christians say they believe them. Yes, the Trinity is a well-established part of mainstream Christianity and has been for centuries. Nevertheless, I question its biblical and historical foundations, as well as its intelligibility, usefulness and importance.
I accept that Jesus is the Son of God without pretending to know exactly what this means or how it works. I accept that his incarnation, death and resurrection accomplished God’s plan of salvation without pretending to grasp every nuance. The doctrine of the Trinity may be a fair approximation of who Jesus is or it may simply be a very human attempt to come to grips with an unfathomable mystery. I cannot convince myself that mouthing it like a good little parrot is a Christian essential.
In short, I don’t say the Trinity is true or not true. If someone finds it a useful and helpful way of thinking about God, I don’t say they are wrong. I’m not a non-Trinitarian, but neither can I honestly claim to be a Trinitarian and I'm not convinced I’d be saying anything meaningful if I did. Claiming to be a Trinitarian seems to me to be mostly a litmus test with no real substance.
One of my favorite exercises is to try to identify, at the most basic level and in the most basic language, what seem to me to be the true “Christian essentials.” What do I really have to believe to be a Christian in the eyes of God? For all the above reasons, the Trinity isn’t one of the essentials. But if you think it is, I'm not going to argue with you.
The history of the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t pretty. People were killed during the debates. The official church position flip-flopped from Trinitarianism to Arianism for a period. “We all became Arians overnight!” one bishop famously said.
In short, the history of the doctrine is one of long political negotiation, intrigue and even violence. Despite the formulation of the doctrine in the Fourth Century creeds (at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople), the details weren’t fully settled for hundreds of years after that (and the filioque dispute over whether the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son resulted in the Great Schism of 1054).
One can certainly believe that the Holy Spirit guided and informed this entire process and the final creeds were inspired by God, but the history gives me pause. It looks very much like a high-level version of the squabbling we see on forums such as this and throughout Christendom every day.
Added to this is the reality that this supposedly essential doctrine isn’t clearly set forth in the Bible. If it were, hundreds of years of debates and multiple heresies wouldn’t have occurred. Scholars such as the late Larry Hurtado have shown that the divinity of Jesus was accepted by the very earliest Christians, and Paul’s writings make clear that this was the case from his quotation of early hymns. The struggle that culminated in the doctrine of the Trinity was over what this divinity meant and how Jesus could have been both human and divine.
I'm not saying it's impossible to derive the Trinity from the Bible, so don't start throwing verses at me. I'm saying the doctrine isn't clearly and unequivocally stated, which seems rather odd for what is supposedly such a core doctrine about the very nature of God. It is likewise possible to derive a very different understanding,
The combination of the dubious history and lack of clear biblical authority gives me great pause. Only by blindly accepting the authority and divine inspiration of the Fourth Century creeds could I convince myself that the Trinity was both ontologically true and a Christian essential. Blind acceptance isn’t my notion of faith.
Then there is the doctrine itself – its substance. The doctrine is easily stated in words, as it is in the creeds, but is it even comprehensible or helpful in any meaningful way? I just finished Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by noted Christian philosophers J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, and I found their efforts to make “philosophical sense” of the Incarnation and the Trinity to be unconvincing and almost depressing.
If it is true, the Trinity is a great mystery. It is something we can only accept, not even pretend to understand. Efforts to explain it, to neatly connect the dots, only make it more puzzling and less believable.
To me, the Christian essentials are that (1) Jesus is the Son of God and (2) his incarnation, death and resurrection were sufficient to accomplish God’s purposes. Perhaps Jesus is divine in the same way that the son of a king is royal without being equivalent to the king. I don’t know and don’t believe I need to know. Is it essential to accept the Trinity in order to “believe in Jesus” and what he accomplished? I don’t believe so.
As I’ve matured, both in age and as a Christian, I’ve grown increasingly independent. I’m not going to pretend to believe things just because supposed authorities tell me I must believe them or a majority of other Christians say they believe them. Yes, the Trinity is a well-established part of mainstream Christianity and has been for centuries. Nevertheless, I question its biblical and historical foundations, as well as its intelligibility, usefulness and importance.
I accept that Jesus is the Son of God without pretending to know exactly what this means or how it works. I accept that his incarnation, death and resurrection accomplished God’s plan of salvation without pretending to grasp every nuance. The doctrine of the Trinity may be a fair approximation of who Jesus is or it may simply be a very human attempt to come to grips with an unfathomable mystery. I cannot convince myself that mouthing it like a good little parrot is a Christian essential.
In short, I don’t say the Trinity is true or not true. If someone finds it a useful and helpful way of thinking about God, I don’t say they are wrong. I’m not a non-Trinitarian, but neither can I honestly claim to be a Trinitarian and I'm not convinced I’d be saying anything meaningful if I did. Claiming to be a Trinitarian seems to me to be mostly a litmus test with no real substance.
One of my favorite exercises is to try to identify, at the most basic level and in the most basic language, what seem to me to be the true “Christian essentials.” What do I really have to believe to be a Christian in the eyes of God? For all the above reasons, the Trinity isn’t one of the essentials. But if you think it is, I'm not going to argue with you.
