I wrote:>> 1. The NT does ‘teach’ the doctrine of the Trinity, but doesn’t use the word

Another responded:

Hi Rowland.

Where does it teach a Trinity, _as_opposed_ to say, a Duality, a Quarternity or (let’s get reckless) a Singularity?

My response:

To make it simple:

1. Authority: why do people believe what they believe? Christians give five answers, and have different hierarchies of authority – reason (not just the liberals BTW), Bible, Christ, experience, tradition/church. Here’s my hierarchy, from the top, FWIW: Christ, Bible, reason, tradition, experience.

2. God is mystery, and is not easily described in human terms. Attempts to do so without a respect for ambiguity/ antinomy will be somewhat arrogant and even futile. God is one, not three Gods.

3. The word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible, but I believe the *concept* was affirmed from the earliest days of the church. Put simply: God is one, but the Bible teaches that the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

4. Leaving aside several important questions like ‘Where in the Gospels does Jesus say “I am God” (he doesn’t)? ‘Isn’t it a bit of a circular argument to move from the authority of Christ to that of the Bible which is really our only source of information about him’? ‘Can we trust the historicity/reliability of the NT documents?’ let’s just take one section of one document, and see what we can infer *at face value* (for more from a conservative viewpoint visit http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html ). (I frankly haven’t time at the moment to unpack all of these – and more issues, and I’m still restling – much to Mark’s annoyance: why can’t I make my mind up? – with the very important question ‘How do equally competent biblical scholars and historians arrive at different positions on the historicity question?’).

5. Now a little Bible study (only one section for now, of about 80 times I’ve counted in the Gospels alone where Jesus/ and or the writers make statements about Son/Father/Spirit which suggest these ‘Persons’ are divine. In our Lord’s ‘Upper Room’ discourse (John 14-16) Jesus promises to ask the Father to send “the Comforter/ the Holy Spirit,” (“from the Father…the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father.”) Here the Son sends, the Spirit is sent, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. He is also referred to as one “whom the Father will send in my name.” See John 14:26, and 15:26. ‘I will not leave you orphaned, but I will come to you (14:18); later *we* will come to [the disciples] (14:23). Who’s the ‘we’? Presumably the Father and the Son. The Son has authority to ask ‘the Father’ to send the Spirit (14:16, 26 etc.). What kind of authority does Jesus think he has? ‘I am going away [but] I am coming to you’ (14:28). How? Presumably by the Holy Spirit. Jesus seems to believe then that he and the Holy Spirit are the same. In 15:26 it’s not the Father sending the Spirit, but Christ himself, who ‘sends’ the Spirit ‘from the Father’: so Jesus ‘confuses’ himself and God and Father. Oh, that’s enough for now: chapter 16 has more. Jesus = the Father = the Spirit.

But yes, two important issues are left aside here, among others: does John simply reflect the more advanced theology of a church a couple of generations removed from the Upper Room happening? And if what was written was a true record of what was said by our Lord, how do we know he wasn’t simply grandstanding and claiming divinity?

—

Shalom! Rowland Croucher