In no way do I identify with the actual theology or Semi-Arian
views of the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses and yet I have at the same time
expressed some doubt with regard to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Trinitarian
formulations. To be clear, I am a Trinitarian and have no difficulty in
affirming the Trinity as One God in Three Persons and that each of the Persons
are eternal and fully Divine.
The problems arise with regard to how these formulations are
understood, what the individual terms mean and what role philosophy can play in
helping (or hindering) the development of Trinitarian doctrine.
Further I noted a tendency among many theologians to
acknowledge that in the end the Trinity results in mystery, in tensions unable
to be resolved. Nevertheless many theologians believe it is their task to
develop or push the concepts to the utmost, to the breaking point as it were.
Since the language of Scripture is limited and since we all agree that some
terms like the Trinity (for example) are valid extra-Biblical expressions then
it is permissible (it is argued) to employ new terminologies and concepts and
using Scripture – to forge paradigms and models that range far beyond the
actual textual data. If they pass a series of coherence tests, then they can
subsequently be spoken of as 'Biblical'.
This is what I'm challenging.
For some time I have argued for what could be called
Primitive Trinitarianism, an acknowledgment of the concept and basic model but
at the same time I continue to resist further development, including many of
the categories, terms and assumed prolegomenous principles governing
Trinitarian historical theology.
Some reject this way of thinking on a confessional basis.
Some reject it in light of what could be called a Historical Theological
Progressivism or even (though they will likely chafe at this phrasing) a Progressive
Orthodoxy.
It is acknowledged that the so-called Early Church Fathers
and Apologists did not express the doctrine of the Trinity in terms acceptable
to post-Nicene orthodoxy and yet this is tolerated because they lived and wrote
prior to the Trinitarian conflicts
which commenced in the 4th century. Once these issues were resolved,
to question them or in any way revert to or rely upon previous models is to
question orthodoxy.
This view represents a functional denial of Sola Scriptura and is in reality a de
facto assertion of a Scriptura et Traditio
(Scripture and Tradition) position. Additionally we must also ask where does
the process stop? Rome would argue this process has continued up to the present
day. Eastern Orthodoxy believed the process stopped in the 8th or 9th
century. Protestantism is divided on this point, some arguing that the 16th
or more likely the 17th century represents the cut-off while others
would add some lesser points up until the present day. Some factions find some
common cause with Rome in that they believe the process and development of
theological orthodoxy is alive and continues to the present and in fact the
concept itself is at its core a dynamic. The latter factions of course would
represent forms of theological liberalism.
So there is a progressive aspect to what is considered
orthodoxy. This is at the heart of the Protestant narrative and yet in many
ways it is their own undoing as the argument collapses just as profoundly as
the fictitious consensus patrum of
Roman Catholicism.
I do not mean to suggest there has been no general consensus
when it comes to basic orthodox theological tenets surrounding issues like the
Trinity, Incarnation, Inspiration of Scripture etc., but I am arguing the
consensus and progressive aspects of it are unprincipled and by their own
criteria fail. In other words the progressive orthodox or historical
theological argument largely collapses and thus carries little weight when
weighed against either ante-Nicene theology, let alone actual New Testament
exegesis.
While many criticise any kind of Primitivism or
Restorationism most of the arguments are spurious and often function as little
more than straw-man expressions of the progressive principle. That said,
Primitivism is potentially dangerous especially when hijacked or appropriated
by particular camps with an axe to grind. Such is the case with the Jehovah's
Witnesses. In other instances like with the Stone-Campbell/ Churches of Christ
strong external influences and presuppositions such as Semi-Pelagianism and
Common Sense Realism dominate their read of Ante-Nicene Christianity.
No one is suggesting this is easy or clear cut.
Others such as Fundamentalists who will sometimes make claims
to Primitivism largely eschew these deeply theological issues and place little
focus upon them.
So just what is it that I'm suggesting? What would this
Primitivist Trinitarianism look like?
First of all it will probably appear somewhat dynamic which
will strike some as problematic because the term itself implies instability. By
dynamic I do not mean to suggest relativistic but rather contextual. Rather
than seek to systematically weave together a host of proof-texts into a philosophically
coherent systematic expression it's better to treat this doctrine and others in situ, in the text itself, section by
section, pericope by pericope. And yet even saying this it is proper and
necessary to accept thematic and redemptive-historical structures within
particular books of Scripture.
Am I saying that Luke, John and Paul, or even individual
Pauline epistles must be treated separately and that we must therefore have
perhaps a dozen different formulations of the Godhead?
No, but the systematic process necessarily places a logical
prioritisation on certain concepts. Reliant on common intuition, human notions
of causation and the law of non-contradiction the systematician will out of
necessity allow certain doctrines to establish foundations and dictate meaning
to other passages.
Is this not the Analogy of Scripture? Is this not Scripture
interpreting itself? A valid concept but it's not so simple. The Analogy works
well when reconciling narrative, but it has its limits. There are
Redemptive-Historical considerations that lead us to rightly prioritise New
Testament interpretations and commentary when viewing the Old. Apocalyptic is
perhaps the most complicated relying on perspicuous concepts from the Gospels
and Epistles even while it interacts with Old Testament symbolism, perspective
and idiom.
But what about doctrine? What about Christology, Soteriology,
Anthropology and the like?
Scripture does interpret Scripture and I argue a case can be
made that Scripture itself provides for us the means by which doctrine is to be
understood and developed. Theology properly speaking is not just the study of
God but represents a development of doctrine into systematic frameworks. In
other words it depends upon coherence and in fact seeks that end.
To the contrary, doctrine (as opposed to the exercise, method
and ordering tendency of theology) is authoritative and declarative. It is the raw
teaching of Christ and the Apostles and in many cases there are dynamics and
dialectics at work that are not able or even meant to be reconciled. By
dialectic in this case I do not mean the process (akin to dialogue) by which a
conclusion or resolution is reached but instead a permanent state of bi- and
multi-polarity in which unreconciled concepts are permitted to stand and
function as complete or absolute in themselves.
Rather than view such unresolved tensions as examples of
nonsense or incoherence they instead represent the limits of human capacity to
grasp the Divine, the finite to grasp the infinite, the ability for analogy to
represent comprehensive reality. This is not to suggest knowledge is impossible
but rather limited, perhaps even severely limited, leaving us groping in the
dark, dependent on the light of revelation given to us.
Christ Himself provides numerous examples of such limited
'logic' in John 6 for example, a passage I have often cited.
All that the Father giveth me
shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
In one passage we have intimations of Divine predestination
and decretalism coupled with a universal offer implying both a will to save and
the ability for man to respond.
Various theologies attempt to explain this away by
prioritising one aspect at the expense of the other because to leave it
unresolved is to be left with a dynamic, an resolved dialectic, and by some
reckonings a contradiction. Some might argue for a paradox but the language
does not suggest it. Rather it suggests two opposing viewpoints that if left
unreconciled are in a state of incoherence and thus by the standards of the
Western philosophical tradition, the statements represent a theological fallacy.
Instead I argue this passage and many others actually provide
the basis for the Analogy of Scripture. Scripture teaches us Divine Logic, how
to think and reason in Scriptural/Spiritual terms. A great deal more could be
said on this score but our focus at present is with regard to the Trinity.
Historically there is a danger. Overly focusing on the Unity
of the Godhead leads to either to a type of Unitarianism in which Christ is
effectively rendered a subordinate or demi-god or in some cases a mere man,
perhaps an 'adopted' man. Or likewise in another vein, an over-emphasis on
Unity can lead to Modalism in which the persons of the Trinity are but names
referring to the one God.
At the same time an over emphasis on the Persons leads either
to Subordinationism in which the 2nd and 3rd Persons of
the Trinity are somehow less than the Father who (practically and effectively) becomes
the real and only God or at its worst it can lead to rank tri-theism.
While Arius is famous for his Subordinationist Nontrinitarian
formulation in which Christ is a created being, a type of god but not equal to
the Father, the truth is that most of the Early Church Fathers held to some
form of Subordinationism. This is not to say they were Arian but by the
standards of Nicaea, they had (at the very least) strong subordinationist
tendencies. Or to put it anachronistically, they focused more on the Economic
Trinity as opposed to the Ontological Trinity. This profoundly disturbs
historical theologians who are left declaring them wrong and yet forgivable due
to their context. Progressive Orthodoxy again comes into play.
Don't misunderstand me, we can exercise a degree of charity
with regard to those who lived in the past and (due to their context) had not
yet reckoned or wrestled with the particularities of a certain issue. That's
one question, but what if, in the case of the Early Church, the ante-Nicene
Church, that's not the case? What if they didn't possess an immature or
defective Trinitarianism? What if Nicaea represents a methodological turn, and
perhaps one in the wrong direction? Its results may be prima facie acceptable but what if the road taken by Nicaea was in
fact itself an error?
We could at this point also discuss the flawed prolegomena on
the part of some of the Ante-Nicene apologists and their well-meant but oft
misguided motives driving them to cast the faith in philosophically coherent
terms. We could also raise the question or possibility of unreconciled
dynamism. By this I mean that the Ante-Nicene Church was wrestling with these
various concepts and yet at that time was willing to leave the tensions
unresolved. Why? Because the different questions regarding Unity and
Subordination both have Scriptural warrant. Thus Unreconciled Dynamism is in
fact a good thing, a position representative of Biblical doctrine, though by
theological standards it certainly falls short.
I will grant that due to the mounting controversy it was
inevitable that the questions would have to be wrestled with in a more direct
manner but at the same time there is cause for lament in that the controversies
and the driving factors from both the urge for Catholicity and the quest for coherence
began a process which would (in the end) move the Church away from the
Scriptures in the direction of not just creeds but creedalism and
scholasticism. And like it or not the
impetus for Nicaea was as much political as it was theological. Even under the
Edict of Milan's auspices of toleration, would a so-called Ecumenical Council
have happened apart from Constantine and his desire to steer the empire toward
a sacral unity, a process only completed under Theodosius near the end of the
century? This tendency coupled with the synthesis of Church and culture during
the Middle Ages continues to prove disastrous for Christian thought – even to
the present hour.