I have been challenged, rebuked and questioned about my
recent comments with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. The context was a
critical article I wrote responding to a Reformed Charismatic attempting to
critique the Watchtower Society.
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.