The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Even if you disagree, this is THE case for Unitarianism

This is one of those discussions where people look at each other and all say - Well, fer cryin’ out loud, it’s as plain as the nose on your face!! Why can’t YOU SEE IT? :laughing:
This issue will not be settled, and while a good verbal jostle is always fun, I think we’ve laid out our cases, gave a couple of good tweaks, and not advanced the question one whit. However, it was worthwhile, and hopefully others will find it of use.

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Tim. 2:5.

Paidion, I’m afraid I have to strongly disagree. The folks who can tell us what the doctrine of the Trinity is are the Church Fathers are developed the doctrine. And they did not understand the Trinity as a community of three consciousnessess. They just didn’t. If you can provide patristic testimony to the contrary, I’d be delighted to see it.

The Church Fathers distinguished the Father, Son, and Spirit by their relations of origin: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten by the Father, the Spirit is generated by the Father. What you will not find in their writings is the claim that God is “3 separate centres of consciousness in unity.” They do not think or talk that way, as evidenced in the adoption of the word hypostasis (originally a synonym for ousia) to designate the Three.

What you have described as Trinitarianism is in fact a modern version, commonly called “social Trinitarianism,” that has been advanced by some 20th century Protestant theologians (Moltmann, Pannenberg) and analytic philosophers (Swinburne, Plantinga); but this social Trinitarian version would have been rejected by the Church Fathers as tritheistic, as noted by Zizioulas (quoted above). The Zizioulas quotation is important, because he is often described as a social Trinitarian himself. For a thorough recent analysis and discussion, see Stephen Holmes, The Quest for the Trinity.

If I’m correct about this (and I’m fairly confident that I am), then this means that it is probably best to avoid “center of consciousness” language when contrasting Modalism and orthodox Trinitarianism. Perhaps the Modalistic Deity (given that Modalism collapses into unitarianism) may be described as a single center of consciousness; but the Triune God is not properly described as a community of three individual persons (three consciousnesses, three minds, three wills).

For a couple of decades I would have described myself as a social Trinitarian; but I had to rethink my position after I started reading the fourth-century Church Fathers.

That being the case, I don’t think I have ever heard a definition of trinitarianism as the early church fathers would have understood and articulated it. The modern notion of the trinity, however, I certainly can’t agree with. Against that understanding, I think the author is absolutely right. I will withhold judgment on the church fathers’ understanding of trinity until I have seen a clear argument for it. I do think that this article presents, at least, a very strong argument against the modern formulations of trinity that I grew up with.

The essence of much of my objection to trinity revolves around the clearest statements of scripture themselves (especially in regard to how Jesus referred to The Father vs. himself), in addition to the idea of names of God vs. “persons”. Do I believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all, in some sense, God? Yes; but I don’t think that this constitutes a trinity any more than “Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” constitutes a “Quadrinity”.

I too would like some clarity on the ECF ‘definition’ of the trinity - at least, the ECF of the 4th century or so.
Keeping in mind that we know that most of the "earliest "of the ECF - up until 4th century or so - held to a ‘small t’ trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and, after that time, the ‘large T’ Trinity theory developed.

About 6 years ago I visisted a Binitarian congregation that believes Jesus and God are two seperate persons, but the Holy Spirit is tht Spirit of Christ. And I know plenty of Oneness believers whom I consider fellow Christians. And frankly, I don’t think it should be an issue that we use to separate us. In fact, I don’t think “issues” separate us, but what separates us is our pride, selfrighteousness, fear, and a tragic lack of grace, mercy, and love. That being said, I think of God as a tri-part being, kinda like I think of myself as being a tri-part being of spirit, soul, and body. But I could certainly be wrong.

I am with you, Sherman.
Really, the whole concept came about because Scripture is rather confusing on the topic (there is plenty of evidence for and against the Trinity, to my mind…though i personally think there’s a bit more CLEAR evidence for it). Certainly it is a later doctrine, hammered out over years of trying to make sense of the Scriptural words about God’s relationship to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But it’s merely an attempt to understand that.

Unitarians, Binitarians and Trinitarians are likely all coming at the same issue from different angles, and likely we all get a bunch right and a bunch wrong.

I am happy that God doesn’t judge us by the rightness of our theology (so long as it doesn’t keep us in chains or make us arrogant), but by our hearts (though i get that wrong too often enough)

Thanks guys. That was why in the OP I made a plea for non-contentiousness and friendliness. There is a place to be stubborn, and a lot of places we don’t need to be stubborn. This is one of the places where, since I don’t know for a certainty a) what the truth of the matter is or b) whether it makes that much difference, I’m not going to be THAT stubborn.
All a man can do is choose what to believe. :smiley:
I’m always open to learning, though…

Yep, same.
i did a Bible study once with the Christadelphians, who are Annihilationist Unitarians with a VERY high view of Scripture (i think their plain reading puts Reformed plain reading to shame, but that’s just me). I thought their arguments against the Trinity were well thought out and logical. I wasn’t ultimately convinced of them, but i learned to respect a difference in interpretation from them. And i owe them a lot, because Annihilationism was a step on the path towards the more Biblical and logical belief in Universalism (here’s a point where i will be stubborn, but hopefully in a loving way :laughing: ), and they helped me formulate some thoughts on why i too doubt the existence of a “personal” devil as traditionally understood.
As for the Trinity, however, i still think that Scripture affirms some odd things about Jesus claiming divinity, and it being affirmed from On High as well.
It’s likely one of those areas where tension between the different schools of thought might actually lead to the wisdom to understand something about God’s mystery, so long as we remain loving and respectful to each other, as you’ve urged.

I once went into a Oneness Pentecostal service with a few Christian brothers and sisters of mine (none of us knew it was Oneness). Before the service began I the thought entered my mind, “This is a oneness pentecostal church”. I hadn’t seen anything to tell me that it was (I believe it was the Holy Spirit telling me). When I entered the sanctuary there was prayer already going on, people then began to weep as worship started, the pastor preached with passion (not the best message, but not bad either). The fellow believers who had come with me were very happy with how everything had gone (I had thought it was great as well). Still I could not shake the oneness feeling (even the message had not given it away). So going upfront I asked the pastor what he believed about the trinity, he answered that it fell outside their beliefs. I had a civil talk with him about how I saw it in Scripture, he clearly said he saw the opposite and we left it at that. When I told my Christian friends that it was a Oneness Pentecostal church they were all very shocked. Every one of us had felt that the Holy Spirit was moving in that service.

I never forgot that, because it showed me something. It showed me that God is not limited by our conception of Him. If He wants to move among people He will. Do I believe our understanding of God is the most important thing about our lives? You better believe it! Do I think the trinity is a core doctrine that Christians should believe? Yes. But just like newborn babes, if their knowledge is incomplete, if they do not grasp the truth of it, then I believe the Spirit of truth is patient with them. However (and this is the controversial part for some) I believe if someone believes and loves Christ, then they will learn the truth. To me this is the trinity, without which our understanding of God is quite lacking.

I appreciate those remarks. I’ve not been to a Oneness church, or even talked to a Oneness believer, actually.
I guess we are ALL lacking in our knowledge of God, in some respect(s) or other?
Ach…I almost went into my stubborn-I-must-be-right mode. But I won’t do that, as really, there’s no point. People heavily invested in the doctrine of the trinity will not change their mind unless God does it for them, right? :laughing:
I will stick with Channing’s arguments, as I have seen nothing yet that answers them. And really - to state that the many believers who do not attach much importance to an obscure and obscurely stated 4th century doctrine - that they are lacking in knowledge of God for that reason - well, I just don’t know if that is fair.
But as an opinion, certainly you are welcome to it, and you stated it fairly and with a good spirit, and I appreciate that as well. :smiley:

Most important is that we love one another, so the world will know we are His children.

And, keep in mind that my anti-Trinitarian stance is just how I see things currently, and is purely a logical consideration. I’m still open to my mind being changed, but I’m definitely leaning away from that understanding. I certainly don’t see the issue as a reason for division, only for discussion. :wink:

Do Unitarians Understand the Trinity?

Just for you, Dave? :slight_smile:

Thank you, sir, that was, as always, a well-written essay. :smiley: You do have a gift for focusing, amassing evidence, and presenting an argument - a gift I have fervently wanted and not (yet!) attained.

I have a few quick thoughts.
First, the scriptures are not shy about using anthropomorphisms, as you know. In a sense - and I’m just thinking out loud here - the Incarnation was an anthropomorphism, no?
Second, I don’t really understand the word ‘hypostases’, and it seems to be a term that is undefinable, unless the word ‘person’ is used as part of the definition. But if the concept ‘person’ is anthropomorphic, doesn’t the definition fail?
Third, the Son is certainly aware of the Father as being a different - what, if not Person? One does not pray to oneself, one does not mediate between oneself and man, but between God (the Father, right? It must be the Father alone, or the mediation sounds rather silly) and man.

Well, there are many unanswerable questions; the main question here is whether something that is a Mystery, and undefinable, and not able to be comprehended, can or should be normative for Christian belief. On the other hand, the NT is crystal clear about the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and I hold to that clarity. I don’t know what else to do, frankly.

I believe that Channing was expressing his opposition to what, at his time, was current thinking. When I find some time I will try to find current (at his time) explanation of the Trinity.

Thanks again.

Dave, I recently wrote two articles on the meaning of divine person (with you in mind). You may find the second in particular of interest: Father, Son, Spirit as Divine Selves. Enjoy … or at least I hope you don’t disenjoy. :slight_smile:

Thanks once again! Enjoyed that link, I did.

This, though:
“It means only that three divine Selfs exist in, and possess, the indivisible Godhead, without either separation or confusion. Such doctrine is not self-contradictory, for it does not, as is objected, declare three persons to be one person, or three beings to be one being.”

What then DOES it mean, if not those things? Three Selfs, not ‘confused’ (as in mixed together, overlapping, I take it) and not ‘separate’.

These 3 talk to one another, celebrate one another etc - but they are not separate. ?

“The divine persons, rather, perfectly co-exist in each other by virtue of their equal possession of the one divine nature. This is the doctrine of coinherence. Hence the term “person” may be considered as functionally equivalent to “subject,” “self,” or even “ego” but without any suggestion of separation” We may not be able to explain how there can be three selves where there are not three independent beings; but why do we think that we may impose our experience of finite human personality upon the infinite and transcendent Creator? “Apart from supernatural revelation,” Hall rightly states, “the possibilities of divine personality lie beyond our capacity to determine” (IV:193). Measuring and defining divine personality by what we observe in the created realm must be judged misguided and unsound, if not silly. “Because we never find more than one real self in one human being, it does not follow that only one self can exist in the one divine Being” (IV:166-167)."

About 5 non-sequiturs in a row, there. I leave the proof to the student. :smiley:

I don’t think that understanding this is a matter of intelligence, or, of course, I would have gotten it immediately. :laughing:
I just don’t think there is any ‘there’ there. I’m standing on scripture on this, not philosophy, but even philosophically I don’t think that coining a phrase and then saying we cannot understand it but it’s true and actually a requirement for Christian belief, begs the question in a big way.
What is CLEAR in scripture must take priority. IMHO the Trinity as spoken of in your essay is not a clear concept. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are clear, otoh.

Right. Not separate. Given that each divine person equally and fully possesses the divine essence, they cannot be ontologically separate, as angels or beavers are separate from God. And given that God is immaterial, they are not separated by space. So in what sense are they separated? And yet Holy Scripture and the spiritual experience of the Church tells us that the three person are to be distinguished–hence the paradoxical language of the trinitarian doctrine. Heresy is taking one truth and exalting it over other revealed truths, resulting in an unbalanced presentation of divine revelation. The classical doctrine of the Trinity refuses to do this; rather, it asserts the entire counsel of God, holding antithetic truths in tension.

The Church Fathers were keen students of the Bible. I’m confident they knew the Scriptures far better than you and I. Many of them were also well-trained in philosophy. And yet they refused to take the easy route of harmonization. Why? Because the gospel itself was at stake! The anti-Christian philosophers of the early centuries of the first millennium rejected the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as illogical and irrational. Against them the trinitarian Tertullian declared, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”

The very same Church Fathers who canonized the books of the Old and New Testaments were the ones who proclaimed the Nicene doctrine of the Holy Trinity. If you reject the Trinity, you cut the scriptural limb upon which you are standing, Dave.

I feel like this is appropriate at this time?

youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

LOL. All creaturely analogies are inadquate, as the video makes so very clear. :slight_smile:_

Oh come now, the ‘entire counsel of God’ - that’s overreaching a bit, I think, if not pretentious.
As to antithetic - def: diametrically opposed? No wonder it takes a heap of high-falutin’ words to convince anyone of its truth. Now if it was plainly in scripture, it might not take as much work.
I hold, at this time, the ‘classical’ Unitarian doctrine of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I think my classical is as good as your classical. :smiley:

I really don’t want to get involved in an ECF discussion - we’ve had those here and they were generally less than satisfactory. I cannot accept your statement that I’ve cut off the scriptural limb I’m sitting on, Al. I’m as fallible as the next guy, but I’m trying to lean on the trunk and understand the roots more than I am up there with the birds. That’s almost a metaphor!

What if, when Delilah asked Samson where he got his strength, he answered ‘from the Lord’?
I feel much the same way about councils, creeds, catechisms, Institutes. That’s not where our strength comes from. Somewhere along the line I decided to try and see as clearly as I could, and make my choices as best I could - and the belief in the Trinity as ‘classically’ (makes it sound so venerable) defined, as holding diametrically opposed ideas, coming into being a few hundred years after the gospel was preached to the world without the idea of the Trinity being stressed or developed, is not convincing. I see no need for it. I am happy to have God as my Father, Jesus as my elder brother (and as an aside, Lord and king of the world) and the Holy Spirit to make these things real. The ‘classical’ view just confuses me.

BTW, I am certainly not calling the good Father - pretentious or overreaching - it was the claim for the ‘classical’ stance that I was referring to. Akimel has always been fair and kind. :smiley: