In a recent post titled Essentials of Christianity, Roger Olson, while agreeing with Emil Brunner’s “that the doctrine of the Trinity is a defensive formula and therefore very important but not part of the kerygma,” says that belief in the Trinity is not necessary to be a Christian.
I believe it and hope all Christians will believe it, but it is so easy to be confused about it that I’m not certain one must believe it to be a Christian. bold added
And this is seen in Professor Olson’s consideration of Oneness Pentecostals:
I have come to believe, for example, that many Oneness Pentecostals are simply confused; they just don’t “get” the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, there are others who understand it fully and go out of their way to reject it. read more…
So if I’m understanding Roger Olson correctly, because: 1. An understanding of the Trinity often leads to confusion, then it’s not necessary to be a Christian. This then raises the question, So only easily understood doctrines of the Scripture are essential in being a Christian? But who decides what doctrines are easily understood or not?
And 2. though “a defensive formula and therefore very important,” but because it’s not part of the kerygma, belief in it is not necessary to be a Christian. But I’m compelled to ask, What are those “teachings that we must continue in”? And Luke talks about devotion to the “apostles’ doctrines”? Are these somehow perfunctory? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the good professor here.
Perhaps along with Professor Olson, we need to rethink what we consider the “essentials of Christianity,” and not be so quick to say, “Here’s a long list of doctrines and anyone who doesn’t believe them isn’t a Christian.”
I think the only essential is that we confess with our mouth and believe in our hearts that Christ is lord – came, died, raised and will come again. Even within this criteria – there has to be a looseness and grace. What happens to people with dementia, who can no longer hold to doctrines. – People with brain injury or those without the intellectual capacities to understand?
I have been thinking about this a lot and if somewhere along the line I have made Christianity increasingly complicated and need to simplify it once again.
Craig,
I think Olson’s point is not in actually becoming a Christian but being in Christian.
Surely your last point is the key. Salvation doesn’t depend on understanding and assenting to a list of doctrines. It depends on a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
While that is true, such a relationship must be defined.
Well, yes, but surely it is not defined by doctrine. Do you select their friends because of their beliefs or philosophical positions, whether religious or otherwise? Or is it more to do with how much they care for you? I’m not saying that beliefs don’t matter at all, but to me they are secondary.
Amen TC, this is the whole problem with “emergent” theology!
TC,
I have heard it argued that rejecting the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son (1 John 1:1-3 ; 2:22-23, etc.) is an aspect of the rejection of the Incarnation!? (Note also 1 John 5:1) And, (2 John 7-9). And here we are right on the cusp of the Father’s monarchal auhority, and the Trinitarian life and reality: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19). Thoughts?
Peter,
True, but you don’t just go out and say to the first person you see, “I’m going to be your friend.” There’s some “knowing” that must take place.
As you know, at some point every human analogy breaks down. Plus, I think we need to differentiate between that initial moment of becoming a Christian and what it means to be a Christian in a dynamic relationship with God as revealed in Christ.
Fr. Robert,
The thing to note about John’s first epistle is what John he says at 5:13, leaving me to conclude that there’re somethings that must be known, which of course includes the Incarnation.
TC,
Yes indeed, “knowing” the Father and the Son! To miss to eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, is real loss and and can be certain error! Again, (1 John 1:1-4).
*the
I think Olson represents what Jason Vickers is talking about in his book “Invocation and Assent:The Making and Remaking of Trinitarian Theology”. He sees the particular problem that Olson highlights as stemming from the Protestant principle of sola scriptura and reflected as far back as debates between Protestants, Unitarians, Socinians, and Catholics. Vickers, however, doesn’t think the solution is to discard the Trinity as an essential doctrine. I agree.
I’m not doing Vicker’s book any justice in my quick description so I recommend reading it. It’s related to the Canonical Theism project (not canonical criticism).
Bryan,
In my old age, I am seeking to simplify the great doctrines of God! Seriously, I have a few friends and church people that follow my statements sometimes on the blog, and some tell me they are afraid to question or make comment. As they say, this all goes over their head? Sad, the Church has become so theological specialist. We need a theological scholasticism, but we also need to explain it!
Bryan L,
But Olson is?
There’s so much wrong with this line of thinking. First, the Trinity (i.e., God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) is more than part of the kerygma; it’s the basis for it! Olson knows well how intimately linked Father, Son, and Spirit are in Biblical texts that speak of salvation. Second, the doctrine of the Trinity is simply our way of formulating and systematizing our thoughts about the God that we, as Christians, believe in. It is the distinctly Christian doctrine of God, and rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity evinces that one is not a Christian. Third, if the question is what one must first believe to become a child of God then the answer is that one must believe the Gospel, which is Trinitarian in shape, i.e., the Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners, the Son lived a life in obedience to the Father and eventually died and was resurrected, and upon believing this we receive the Holy Spirit as the guarantee of our inheritance. Fourth, the Church already worked out its essentials long ago in response to attacks and error. Ecumenical councils have the luxury of being ecumenical, i.e., representing the whole Church. Olson isn’t going to change that; no individual is. Fifth, it’s easy to be confused about anything. It’s easy to be confused about atonement in general and any particular doctrine of atonement specifically. It’s easy to be confused about who Jesus was and what Jesus came to do. It’s easy to be confused about God’s love and justice and so many other things. So if being confused is grounds to say that we don’t have to believe something in order to be Christians then it seems that there’s nothing we have to believe.
Amen Nick! Would that Evangelical Christians knew more here and cared! And it is the Son of God incarnate that leads us into the trinitarian life and interior witness, of course by the Spirit! (Eph. 2:18 / Gal. 4:6-7/ also Matt. 11: 27) But without the monarchy of the Father, we will stumble to understand! Oh Blessed God our Father! (Eph. 3: 14-15)
I think we have to be careful about over generalizing as if there is an easy “in” and “out” here. There may be Oneness Pentecostals who are not saved; there may be people claiming to be Trinitarian Christians who are not saved. Likewise, there may be a Oneness Pentecostal who is misguided yet growing in Christ. The same is true of Trinitarians.
In general, yes, Trinitarianism equates to orthodoxy. The Oneness Pentecostal model often has grave error included. That being said, not all Oneness Pentecostals affirm the same thing. Many are unsure of what they believe, but they just happen to go to the local church where they feel the Spirit though they don’t have the time or capacity to ponder the nature of God. Many have been told the “Trinity” is pagan, but when pressed to explain the Christian God they say something very Trinitarian (here we should blame the misguiding leaders, not the misguided).
In other words, it isn’t easily black and white here. At least not in my opinion. We can affirm the generality (Trinitarian = orthodox; Oneness Pentecostal = heterodox/sectarian at best, heretical at worst), but we must be careful not to make the general truth the final word on every individual.
I am with Nick and Brian LePort – while full understanding or even awareness of the Trinity may not be necessary for salvation/initiation into the people of God (you’d be surprised how many Christians know next to nothing about Trinitarian theology – yet they are, without question, “saved”) – it is an essential Christian doctrine and should be held to and affirmed – that said, I am not going to rake people through the coals or tell them they are not Christians if they can’t explain all the in’s and out’s of this essential Christian Doctrine.
Hi Brian,
I like to think of the gospel in terms of a life preserver thrown to a drowning person. They don’t need to know the color, material, or anything else about the life preserver–only that they need to hold onto it in order to live! Once they’ve grasped the life preserver, they’ll have plenty of time to examine it.
Brian Fulthorp,
I think you’ve captured the essence of what Olson is saying.
Nick,
I’m in essential agreement with everything you’ve said. But my only issue here is what I consider a failure to make a necessary differentiation: yes, there’s a Trinitarian presence in the understanding of salvation, of course in the background and foreground. But this in know what is part of the kerygma. I believe Olson’s point stands here.
Brian Leport,
This is what Olson is also saying.
T.C.,
I don’t think Olson is saying that the Trinity leads to confusion. He notes that some Oneness Pentecostals “understand it fully and go out of their way to reject it.” It seems that it’s better understood that the confusion is about, not because of, the doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, people don’t understand it first and then get confused—which is how I’m understanding your first point—but people (like the Oneness Pentecostals) don’t understand it at all, and are therefore confused (for instance, when they say Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
The other thing is that Olson only stated his uncertainty about the Trinity being a necessary belief to be a Christian. This doesn’t constitute a hard denial of the Trinity, but it seems to be more of a personal uncertainty. The entire tenor of the post seems to be about the personal understandings of what are the beliefs that make up a Christian (distinguished from salvation). That’s how I’m reading Olson, at least.
TC:
Olson is what?
Bryan,
Still trying to figure out Brunner! lol Btw, I would strongly disagree with Brunner on the life of the Trinity for the Christian believer! And Brunner also missed the Virgin Birth.
JohnDave,
No, I’m not saying that Olson is saying that either. “Understanding” the Trinity is what often leads to confusion.
Yes, he’s not denying it either. Note his agreement with Brunner.
Bryan L,
My question was whether or not you think Olson is saying that the Trinity is not essential. You raised that in your comment. Sorry I wasn’t clearer.
Haven’t read any of the previous comments, so this is just based upon the post. But based on Olson’s logic “that the doctrine of the Trinity is a defensive formula and therefore very important but not part of the kerygma,”. . . all Christian “dogma” should be relegated to apologetics and thus not “essential” to the faith. But then I’m not sure we would have much of the “faith” left.
Bobby,
We need to zero in on the kerygma here.
That almost means nothing to me, TCR. If the kerygma is necessarily Trinitarian — and it is — then what do you mean? There is the ontological reality, and the epistemological is necessarily tied to that. Of course the apprehension of the Trinity may take time for individuals to begin to grasp, but in principle the kerygma is necessarily Trinitarian or its a different Gospel.
Couldn’t we follow the principle with the development of dogma, that: what they intended for evil, God turned it for the good . . . ? So that God providentially used Arius, Eutychus, Origen et al as the occasion wherein He moved to pronounce and provide grammar for His Church (and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it). This way this could all be seen in “positive” terms and not negative/polemic, per se (even though the polemic concern was the occasion for “positive” development).
I always like this quote when thinking about such things:
Bobby,
Perhaps we should explore some questions here: 1. What is the Gospel? What is the Kerygma? And How does the Trinity relate to each? We also need to keep some aspects of these separate at different stages of the dialogue, or we’ll find ourselves putting up “boundaries” that we don’t need to.
I think Jesus is the Gospel. I think the Kerygma is the proclamation of the Gospel. I think w/o Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity, there is no Gospel; and thus there is nothing to proclaim.
|I think Jesus is the Gospel. I think the Kerygma is the proclamation of the Gospel. I think w/o Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity, there is no Gospel; and thus there is nothing to proclaim.|
Bobby,
Yes, and some of these were kept in the background of the Kerygma. That’s the point.
What do you mean, “kept in the background?”
I am afraid this subject cannot be expressed well on an open blog. We need more than sound bite like elements. Try as we all may.
‘As Paul said himself: “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1 Cor. 1:21) The word translated “preaching,” ‘kerygma’, signifies not the action of the preacher, but that which he preaches, his “message”. Thus the Pauline “kerygma”, is a proclamation of the spiritual facts of the death and resurrection of Christ in an eschatological setting which gives significance to the spiritual reality. But here also is hidden the depth of the doctrine of God triune. Which also St. Paul will seek to give in his NT Letters, a Jewish Monotheism, and in the Christology of Christ, who is Himself.. “the image of the invisible God” (Col.1:15). And even later Paul will also talk about the very pneumatology and the Holy Spirit of God – “for through Him (Christ) we (Jew & Gentile) both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.” (Eph, 2:18)… (A piece of something I wrote years back).
TC:
I’m not sure what Olson believes is essential. He seems to show hesitancy in identifying the Trinity as essential for various reasons.
Bobby,
For the very reason that the Trinity is not part of the Kerygma.
Bryan L,
Yes, that hesitancy is there. There problem is how Olson has stacked the matter: the doctrine on the one hand, and the Kerygma, on the other.
TC,
Instead of making this terse statements, would you mind explaining what you mean by that. I just put together a little syllogism, previously, that thus far you haven’t addressed; except by making these terse statements that don’t demonstrate how what your saying is the case. My point was that you don’t have the kerygma w/o the Trinity; you have nothing to preach or proclaim. So how do you meaningfully assert that the Trinity is not part of the kerygma, when the second person of the Trinity is the message being proclaimed?
Bobby,
There are a couple problems with your syllogism: 1. You’re not even stating the Trinity that you’re insisting upon. Saying that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity does not amount to the Trinity. 2. Which is related to the first, to proclaim the Second Person of the Trinity is not to proclaim the Trinity. You might want to rephrase things a bit.
Therefore you still have not proved your case, in my opinion.
I’m sorry TC. Again, that makes no sense. What I’m saying makes perfect sense; unless of course you presuppose that you can speak of the Son w/o the Father, but then that would make no sense. Since we don’t have a Son w/o the Father; is there a situation wherein you can imagine having a Son w/o a Father? If not, then what I’ve said is “sound,” and the burden of proof remains on you to discount that the Sonship of Christ does not pivot upon, and presuppose the Fatherhood of the Father (this is what the homoousion turned on).
You need to demonstrate that what I’m saying doesn’t make sense (or needs to be rephrased); instead of just asserting that it doesn’t make sense.
I’m waiting . . .
I have been catching up on the comments on this post which have come in during the European night. And I get the strange feeling that people are talking past one another, that there is no real disagreement, only a failure to understand.
I think Olson and everyone who has commented agree that, in general terms, the Trinity is a correct doctrine and an important part of Christian theology, that it is the foundation for the whole Christian proclamation or kerygma, and that proclamation which is not based on the Trinity is at best seriously deficient.
I think everyone also agrees that it is possible for a person to be a Christian and be saved without fully understanding and assenting to the doctrine of the Trinity.
If there is any disagreement, it is whether the doctrine of the Trinity needs to be made explicit in every proclamation of the gospel message. But I think the sermons recorded in Acts show that it does not. These sermons are certainly founded on the idea of the Trinity, even if the preachers did not understand this fully. But new believers were not expected to recite a full Trinitarian doctrinal confession – indeed even Acts 8:37 in KJV etc is a later addition rightly omitted from modern translations.
So, as we proclaim the gospel today, we should certainly hold fast to the truths of the Trinity and base our proclamation on it. But we should not seek to squeeze a formulation of the doctrine into every sermon. And we should consider that professing Christians whose understanding of it is wrong or confused are believers who need to be set on the right path (compare Acts 18:24-28), not unbelievers who need to be saved.
Does anyone disagree?
I think this simply creates a false dilemma, to be honest. If “Christians” are truly proclaiming the Gospel, then this presupposes that they are proclaiming the Gospel that “is” grounded in the triune God. Clearly we aren’t proclaiming a doctrinal statement, we are proclaiming the good news of a Personal Triune God. So, of course, in the right context (the truly Christian one), a Christian proclaims a triune Gospel message; but I don’t think it is fruitful to pose questions in the way that Olson has, it seems, almost, desirous of being provocative for being provocative’s sake.
I think Olson is trying to provide space for a unitarian oneness pentecostal to somehow be saved; in principle I don’t think a self-conscious Oneness person can be saved, but in fact I do think its possible (if it’s just a matter of confusion, which once corrected, is repented of and sound doctrine [a biblical term] is in place).
Jesus seemed to take His identity in relation to His proclamation as corollary and very important (Jn 4.24 and the whole Gospel of John, actually).
I’m just asserting my convictions on this. Not necessarily looking for an argument
.
On this one, I will have to disagree. I see no biblical support for your position that salvation depends on sound doctrine.
I agree with you Bobby! The proclamation of Christ, as Lord, leads us right into the trinitarian revelation of God. And as I have noted, 1 John reveals the eternal relationship of the ‘Father and Son’. The NT certainly contains the doctrine of the Trinity of God, and in some sense this is also “kerygmatic”.
Peter,
Do you believe an LDS can be saved, apart from believing in the Jesus the Apostle’s proclaimed?
No, Bobby, I believe an LDS can be saved by believing in the Jesus the apostles proclaimed, without necessarily understanding everything that was implicit in their proclamation. After all, even the apostles didn’t understand all the implications, and I hope you agree they were saved!
Bobby,
What you’re saying does make sense. But as a basis, a foundation, on which the kerygma is founded, but is not what we find in the NT samples, if you will.
Are you expecting to sit someone who down and let them know that a crucial doctrine hangs on a diphthong?
|These sermons are certainly founded on the idea of the Trinity, even if the preachers did not understand this fully.|
Peter,
Thanks for this thoughtful summary. I’m in full agreement here.
Wouldn’t you do that with a JW, TCR? Except in their case its not a dipthong, but an article (Jn 1.1).
If, ontologically, we are not referring to the same God in Christ pre-Nicene (like 1st century and even B.C.), and post-Nicene then we have problems. My only concern is that our God in Christ as particularized in the man from Nazareth be the person of our proclamation as “Christians.” JW’s and LDS proclaim Jesus too, but not the one who saves; and not the one who is the Son, the second person of the triune God. Paul was concerned with preaching a different Jesus (II Cor 11), as was John (I Jn 4), as was Jesus (Mt. 24 — false Messiahs). That’s what I’m highlighting, the fact the the ground of our proclamation claimed to be the Son of God, and thus one with the Father; so that He could so boldly claim that He and the Father were One (the Pharisees understood what Jesus was saying, and thus their desire to crucify Him Jn 19.7).
I think how much someone is able to apprehend (at one point in their walk as they ingress then progress) is a different discussion; and so I think Olson’s points are somewhat sloppy, because it blurs these two issues by collapsing them into one.
Anyway, we probably agree more than disagree.
Peace.
Bobby, have you actually read what they say about Jesus? I happen to have in my hands yesterday’s issue of “The Watchtower” which is all about Jesus, courtesy of a friendly couple who knocked on my door. The article “Why He Died”, while not perfectly in accord with standard evangelical doctrine, describes the atonement in language which would hardly raise an eyebrow among Christians if its source was not known. It clearly states:
Yes, JW’s are wrong or confused on a number of issues, but not, it seems, on this one. So don’t try to lecture them on John 1:1, which is simply a waste of time, but be polite and try to show them the real positives of true Christianity, such as that God loves them and that salvation is by grace alone.
Peter,
Please don’t presume too much, this is a blog after all; I’ve been around the block quite a few times.
Yes, in the past I’ve read the New World Translation; I went through it and found the spots where they forgot to “clarify” the Text. In other words, it’s possible to prove the deity of Christ from the New World Translation.
Do you mean, in re. to JW theory of atonement, that Jesus died on a “torture stick,” not the cross? And further, according to JW theory of the atonement (since the Christian one requires a bodily resurrection), that Jesus rose again in a spirit body (not a fleshy body, so Docetism).
I’ve been involved in Evangelistic ministry for years. I’ve worked with all brands of pagans: JW’s, LDS, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Naturalists, Jews, New Age, Buddhists, et al. The problem with all of them is that they reject the salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
I really don’t know what you’re talking about, with regard to talking to a JW about the deity of Christ; that’s the very issue that divorces them from true Christianity. Since only the God-Man can “bridge” in Himself man to God and God to man. Which explains why their “Arian-like” christology provides them with a works-based soteriology; since they, like all dualists, must bridge the gap between God and man. You illustrate, Peter, why the Trinitarian/Christian Gospel is so important!
Peter,
That JW quote is still very flawed in the reality of the NT Gospel. Strictly speaking the Death of Christ saves the sinner to the uttermost, and not just some mere invitation. And humanity is fully sinful, and not just “imperfect”! And “Jehovah” is God the Father for the reedemed.
*redeemed
One more thing, Peter, you do realize (as with all “Christian” cults), that JW’s equivocate on the terms. And as Fr Robert has said, salvation is much more than an “invitation;” it’s God Himself, see II Jn vs. 2: “. . . because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever . . .”. [remember what "truth" is in the Johannine sense see Jn 14.6] Truth and salvation from the historic Christian perspective is not just objective, but the object (God in Christ) is also subjective and the subject. Salvation only comes, as this verse implies, as we are personally in union with the truth (God’s life) as the Son is in union with the Father by His nature (the homoousios); and we by adoption and grace.
Anyway, Peter, we seriously disagree! But that’s okay, it’s not the first time I’ve disagreed with a brother in Christ
.
Bobby, is it important what shape the cross was, a traditional Latin cross shape, the historically more likely T shape, or the simple I of JW teaching? Surely it is not a condition of salvation that we believe that the cross was the correct shape?
But I agree with you that the real problem with such groups is “that they reject the salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.” To my mind THAT is “the very issue that divorces them from true Christianity.”
Fr Robert, if you want me to choose between the JW position and a hyper-Calvinist one in which salvation is independent of human response to a proclamation of the gospel, then I am with the JWs, and with the apostles in e.g. Acts 2:38.
Peter,
Not once did I mention, nor imply a Hyper-Calvinism, you have chosen to go there! I am an Anglican Reformed, and yeah a ‘Calvinist’. But, I am drawn more to the Federal Vision, and I prefer the Irish Articles 1615, at least creedally. No, and I, like Calvin I feel, believe in a General Atonement. You need to do your homework it appears here! And it also appears you are more of an “emergent” in your biblical and so-called theological ideas. This is not ad hom, but just an observation theologically.
Fr Robert, you appeared to deny that there was an invitation involved in the gospel. I accept that the JW treatment, in a booklet for outsiders, is theologically incomplete. Also I agree that “imperfect” is an understatement of the human predicament. But apart from that one word I really can’t see what anyone can object to in “His sacrificial death opened the way for imperfect humans to have a good relationship with [God] and to be rescued from sin and death.”
OK, maybe some of my ideas are “emergent”. I’m happy because that means the “emergent” group got some things right!
Peter,
You must read more carefully sir, “not just some mere invitation”. And the JW doctrine is certainly more than “imperfect”, but also flatly Arian..and denies the full Divinity of Christ! Just how can such be considered Christian at all? And the Atonement means nothing if the Son of God divine somehow did not die on the Cross. The value of the Atonement is the Person who died there! (See, Gal. 2:20)
I am glad that you admit to “emergent”, and you seek to make it positive! It makes any discussion about theology and the Bible easier. And yes, you can call me a ‘Calvinist’, just as our friend and brother Bobby Grow is as he says: an ‘Evangelical Calvinist.’ He is more Barthian, and Torrancian, and I am more classic Calvinist, though a measured Federal Calvinist, and as I noted friendly with the FV. I hope your “emergent” position can gather and make all of this distinction?
Peter,
I would suggest that you might want to study up on what JW’s actually teach and believe about salvation; from what you’re saying it looks like you’re not really understanding where they’re coming from. Words mean nothing divorced from their particular context; wherein they find their “meaning.”
In the past I’ve spent hours and hours of time just studying the JW’s; in fact I did a group study with a bunch of Christians where we researched and worked through multiple Watchtower publications (along with the work on the New World Translation I mentioned previously). You don’t seem to grasp the gravity of disparity between what they communication about Jesus (who they consider to be synonymous with Michael the Archangel), and what we as historic [o]rthodox Christians believe. As someone has once said: “they give you the skin of the truth, stuffed with a lie;” as do all cults. A good primer, if you haven’t already read it, on this kind of stuff is Walter Martin’s classic: Kingdom of the Cults (revised by Hank Hanegraaff).
Actually, JW’s make a big deal about the cross being a “torture stake,” versus the cross (you’ll have to check out why they think that’s important). But ultimately the bigger problem is their doctrine of God, since if they (or anybody) gets that wrong; all subsequent doctrine will be errant as well (which is why I see this to be such an “essential” issue). It seems like you want to affirm historic Christian teaching on the one hand, and mitigate it with your other hand. I mean I don’t really understand what we’re disagreeing about, if you’re affirming something like the centrality of the solas.
Anyway, thank you for your time; I think I’m going to bow out of this one for now
.
PS I know many people who have converted from the JWs to Christianity, and actually spent the last 3 years discipling a couple of guys who converted from the “Witnesses;” I know that they would all quite stringently disagree with your take on this.
Bobby,
I’m only interested in the contents of the kerygma, not all this other theological add-ons. We’re talking another debate here.
It seems like you’re confusing the kerygma with what we call Christian dogmas.
@TCR,
No, I’m just not following Horton’s weak assertion that the Kerygma can be divorced from its ontological ground; that’ simply naive on his part (for theological reasons). Why don’t you explain how I’m providing theological-add-ons to the Kerygma, TCR. You continue to make these grand assertions contra what I’m saying, but w/o any explanation. How am I supposed to understand what you’re asserting if you don’t at least try and develop/substantiate what you’re asserting, at least a little.
Well, let me ask you; do you think an LDS person can be saved apart from trusting in the Jesus proclaimed by the Apostles? And if not, why?
How can someone be required to believe (a) in order to be ‘truly’ (b) if (a) was created after (b) ? This seems like moving the goal posts.
The Fact is, the ‘Trinity’ wasn’t a historic orthodox doctrine until it was in 325. That’s many years to deny followers of Jesus the name Christian.
I know people will say they had the belief in a type of trinity and therefore they were O.k. This might be, but it might not be as well, since a nice clean orthodox belief in the post N. trinity is pretty technical fare and it seems the ‘Orthodox’ Trinitarians, even now, want one to cross all the t’s and dot all the i’s of Trinitarian doctrine before one can be called a ‘Christian.’ I simply find this to be more than scripture would require from one to be called a Christian. Therefore ( as much as I hate to agree with an Armin.) I would go along with Olson here.
Kenny, this is a very shallow view of doctrine. It’s true that the term ‘trinity’ wasn’t created until a few hundred years after (although there were previous approaches to the term); but there is good historical evidence that the concept wasn’t challenged until that point (or, more precisely, that the other challenges were simply more impactful). One needn’t use the term “trinity” to observe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God; that there is One God; and that neither the Father nor the Spirit is the Son (and so on).
I apologize for the insulting term “shallow”; I shouldn’t have used it. I intended to imply that the view you’re presenting is only a superficial examination of historic theology. A deeper examination needs to look at WHY doctrines get elaborated and emphasized, and how they’re used in historical context.
A good starting point for that study, by the way, is O.J. Brown’s “Heresies”.
-Wm
I’m not offended, I know I can be rather simplistic at times (Bobby tells me this all the time and therefore it is probably true).
I do have to say, I anticipated your critique though, when I said, that many people will claim the pre- N. Christians to be in accord with the later Doctrine of the Trinity (which many Pre N. believers were). But many weren’t as well, so I just want to ask was Praxeas, Noetus, Sabellius, Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the countless unnamed believers in Jesus who were under these men’s teaching, Christians? I hope before the doctrine was hammered out (and this was because there was a problem with CHRISTIANS not seeing eye to eye) we would have the grace to say they were truly part of the family of YWHW by faith in Jesus as SON of God.
I think the original post was concerned with the question, can you be a christian and not believe in the trinity. I think history is pretty clear on the matter – there were many Christians before 325 who though they were, it’s sad we don’t think they were. I could be wrong though, I guess we’ll find out when we die.
Kenny,
Certainly “salvation” is not a litmus test on the creedal doctrine itself of the Trinity, nor any modern version thereof. But the essence of the Triune and biblical God certainly is! And we do see that God in the NT itself! (Note again the Text of 1st. Peter 1:2 for example) The NT is just shot thru with the reality of the Triune God! Btw, I have an old, but very biblicist book on the Trinity, called: The Trinity: The Classic Study of Biblical Trinitarianism (originally published as ‘The Rock of Ages, or Three Persons But One God), by that Anglican Edward Henry Bickersteth, 1812-1906. Sweet little book! And I think still in reprint by the American publisher: Kregel. I wish again, I had a case-lot of these!
Kenny said:
Bobby tells me this all the time and therefore it is probably true.
Come on now, I’ve never said this to you. We once had a misunderstanding about that, but that’s been quite awhile ago; and we had already apologized and forgiven (since we were both out of line, as I recall, in that thread over at my old blog Evangelical Calvinist). And I certainly don’t believe such non-sense (that you’re simplistic)!
I know Bobby, I was just joking, since you’re a laker fan. But seriously, I have had to be a bit sharper in the things I write on these blogs, which is good, I owe that to our interactions and you asking hard questions. It was actually a compliment to you.
|I simply find this to be more than scripture would require from one to be called a Christian.|
Kenny,
While I will not argue your point here, one question: but would you affirm the Trinity in the salvation of a person?
Fully !!!!- I just finished reading Sanders book “The deep things of God:How the Trinity changes everything” and Larry Hurtado’s book “God in N.T. Theology” both have impressed on me the triadic theism contained in the working out of our salvation and union to God. We need God and we are in union with the three in one, but since I don’t believe in the primacy of the intellect, understanding the ‘nature’ of the trinity FOR salvation is probably similar to understanding astrophysics. I can look out into the universe and not understand and still be in awe and know that somehow I’m part of this ‘unity in diversity’ we call the universe.
On theological and ontological principle our friend Bobby is right. You simply don’t have a “Kerygma” without the undergirding reality of the Trinity of God! But this Trinity is only revealed, at least now theologically and somewhat creedally. But, it is also biblically revealed, like at the baptism of Jesus, etc. And then further biblically with Paul, and John, even St. Peter (1 Peter 1: 2).
Indeed the depth of the Trinity of God will be an eternal blessing! And here we can only worship!
‘All praise and thanks to God
The Father now be given,
The Son, and him who reigns
With them in highest heaven -
The One, eternal God,
Whom earth and heaven
adore;
For thus it was, is now,
And shall be evermore.
Amen.’
Pingback: The Trinity is Idle Speculation | Unsettled Christianity
Pingback: Against Trinitarian Dogma/For Trinitarian Ethics? | Political Jesus
|On theological and ontological principle our friend Bobby is right. You simply don’t have a “Kerygma” without the undergirding reality of the Trinity of God! But this Trinity is only revealed, at least now theologically and somewhat creedally. But, it is also biblically revealed, like at the baptism of Jesus, etc. And then further biblically with Paul, and John, even St. Peter (1 Peter 1: 2).|
Fr. Robert,
Yes a million times! But that is as an “undergirding reality” as we come to see in Paul and others. But a distinction must be made with the kerygma. I don’t see Paul or anyone else saying to non-believers that you must believe the Trinity to become a Christian and so no. Do you?
TC,
In its most simple and early form the “kerygma” is the proclamation of the Apostolic Gospel, the message itself. (Note Acts 4:12) This is not moral instruction or exhortation. And as Paul said, it was “kerygma”, and nothing else that it pleased God to save men. But again simply the kerygma of the preaching of Christ! Note, Gal. 3:1, Christ was “openly set forth before their eyes as crucified.” Or again more simply, “Christ died for our sins.” But behind this is of course, is ‘the Father and the Son’, and the Person and Power of the Holy Spirit! “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion or fellowship of the Holy Spirit, you all.” (2 Cor. 13:14)
So the Kerygma is inclusive of the whole Godhead and the Triune God! How can it not be?
*be with you all
|No, I’m just not following Horton’s weak assertion that the Kerygma can be divorced from its ontological ground; that’ simply naive on his part (for theological reasons). Why don’t you explain how I’m providing theological-add-ons to the Kerygma, TCR. You continue to make these grand assertions contra what I’m saying, but w/o any explanation. How am I supposed to understand what you’re asserting if you don’t at least try and develop/substantiate what you’re asserting, at least a little.|
Bobby,
While I affirm the Trinity, I agree with Olson and others that it is simply not part of the kerygma. This is clear from Scripture. At this point, I realize that I may be engaging in circuitous reasoning here, but neither do I want to turn to theo-logic that has no scriptural basis.
Of course I do not believe a person can be saved by trusting another Jesus, as in the case of the LDS. Simply because of what Scripture says about Jesus. But I fail to see your point here.
|But behind this is of course, is ‘the Father and the Son’, and the Person and Power of the Holy Spirit! “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion or fellowship of the Holy Spirit, you all.” (2 Cor. 13:14)|
Fr. Robert,
True, but we must keep things separate and confuse the matter. This is Olson’s point. I can’t remember Paul or anyone say to a non-believer, “Now here’s the Gospel but you must know that it is founded on the Triune God and that this is essential. It’s the basis of the Gospel.” Where?
TC,
Olson’s point and question is simply the wrong one! And this is behind Bobby’s point also. We simply must engage the doctrine of God (ontological) in salvation! And fully this must include the doctrine of the triune God. No confusion here!
TC,
Note also the doctrine of Baptism in the Triune God here, even as a ‘sign & seal’.
Fr Robert, I agree with you that taken as a whole JW doctrine is in serious error. The point of my quotation was to show that that error is not apparent in their proclamation of Jesus, which is not very different from the apostles’ proclamation.
How would you treat someone who had read that copy of the Watchtower and asked Jesus to be their Lord and Saviour, but had not got further involved with JWs, then turned up at your church? Would you consider them outright unbelievers who needed to renounce their previous “salvation”, or as imperfectly taught believers?
Peter,
If you again read closer, I do not see the JW’s as presenting the “Christ” of Calvary, i.e. His proper Person. Again, only the biblical Christ gives the saving value of the Atonement. And not any “emergent” elements, even if the words and vocabulary appear close. And, these ‘what if questions’ fall by the way-side in the Light of Holy Scripture and the Doctrine of God! (Heb. 5:11-14, etc.) Sorry, but we are on different ground here!
Pingback: The Trinity around the Blogosphere | Near Emmaus
Pingback: Elsewhere (04.04.11) | Near Emmaus
Pingback: Elsewhere (04.04.11) | churchministrynews.com
Pingback: [ad hoc] Christianity , Archive » Episode #14: Blogosphere roundup, April 6, 2011
Pingback: Epiphanius on Trinity « The Evangelical Calvinist