oddinthetruth - Tumblr blog

oddinthetruth · 5 years ago

Text

Six Stages of Trinitarian Commitment

In Dale Tuggy’s Trinities podcast episode 302, he suggests there are 6 “stages” of trinitarian commitment that identify where any given Christian might be with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity.

He stipulates that these are fluid. One might progress through them over time. One could also stay put at any one of them for the duration of their Christian life. One could also move “backwards” to a previous stage.

The six stages are:

paper “trinitarian”

defender of “the Trinity”

interpreter of “the Trinity”

Berean trinitarian

“trinitarian” ex-trinitarian

unitarian Christian

Most of these are self-explanatory. I’d suggest you listen to the podcast if you want the details. My concern lies elsewhere.

Is Dale not so subtly suggesting that if we are honest with Scriptural testimony and the development of 4th century pro-Nicene Trinitarianism, we would all inevitably end up at the sixth stage of “trinitarian” commitment...unitarianism?

Apparently, if the average Christian would cease to “wander in a low information state” about the doctrine of the Trinity and stop parroting their leaders, stage six would seem less and less problematic for them.

Granted, the pressure to conform to tradition and avoid the heretic label would be a significant hurdle to jump. But, ultimately, the lure of a clear conscience and the freedom to properly relate to the Bible as a Protestant would win the day.

The problem with this is...well...me.

I too had a trinitarian crisis and it was Dale’s fault (long story). I spent years (and still am) reading, studying, and learning about the doctrine of the Trinity from a number of perspectives: biblical, theological, philosophical, analytical, Western, Eastern, Nicene, Medieval, etc.

I even worked through my doubts about the Trinity with a resource Dale didn’t have...a unitarian named Dale Tuggy and his Trinities podcast.

Looking back on what led me to where I am today, I have about eight stages. My stages of commitment look a little different than his. They go something like this:

paper “trinitarian”

panicked trinitarian learner (overcoming my “low information state”)

frustrated trinitarian - the doctrine of the Trinity “developed” and isn’t “in” the Bible? I’ve been conned.

closet unitarian - freaking out - but still reading and praying

Wait...there are different and competing models of the Trinity? (more reading and praying)

hopeful agnostic “trinitarian”

Eastern Orthodox scholars, the Cappadocians, and the 4th century...what’s this all about? I’ve never head of any of this. (more reading and praying)

pro-Nicene Monarchy of the Father trinitarian

A point here is that I don’t parrot my (Southern Baptist) church leaders on the Trinity and no longer wander around “in a low information state” about the Trinity. And yet, I didn’t end up at the unitarian stage but moved on from it. Dale’s stages are not inevitable. If you are struggling with the Trinity, you need to know that.

Grace and Peace.

0 notes

oddinthetruth · 5 years ago

Text

COVID’s Survival Rate Is Over 99%

I’m in the middle of a Twitter hiatus. I’m reading. I’m spending a lot of time with Maximus the Confessor’s “On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ.” It is a powerful work on Christ written in the 7th century.

I’m also reading assorted medical studies on COVID. And like I do with my doctrine of the Trinity studies, I’m reading primary sources. The CDC is a treasure trove of buried information. Many of the studies it cites are likewise flush with helpful footnotes.

COVID’s CFR vs. IFR

I’ve come across some interesting information on COVID’s Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). The IFR is an attempt to answer this question: what is the mortality risk rate of COVID?

In other words, it provides the average person and policy-maker the percentage or “likelihood that someone who catches the disease will die from it.”[1]

What is the IFR? It is “the number of deaths from a disease divided by the total number of [actual] cases.”[2] In order to translate the resulting ratio into a percentage, one multiplies it by 100. Importantly, the IFR differs from the Case Fatality Rate (CFR).

The CFR “is the number of confirmed deaths divided by the number of confirmed cases.“[3] The CFR is not the IFR. The CFR will always be artificially higher than the IFR.

Why? The CFR is missing a crucial piece of information. It is missing the actual number of infections. Because of this it produces an inflated mortality rate.

My state’s data, Virginia, will make the difference evident. As of this writing (8/1/2020), the VDH has the following number of COVID cases and deaths: 90,801 cases and 2,215 deaths. From this data we can quickly establish that the CFR is a ratio of 0.024394--simply divide the number of deaths by the number of confirmed cases. This a CFR percentage of 2.44 percent.*

And remember, for the reasons we’ve just mentioned, the CFR is an inflated mortality rate. It is also likely inflated for another reason. It is well documented that many COVID deaths reported are death with COVID and not death by COVID. This means the actual number of COVID deaths is likely lower. This would mean a lower CFR.

However, what is not reflected in CFR data is the actual number of cases. It is uncontroversial that, because of asymptomatic infections and various other reasons, the actual number of infections is much higher than the number of officially reported cases.

For example, on July 30, UVA Health reported[4] that, based on their research, it is likely that as many as 150,000 Virginians have actually been infected. This is substantially more than the aforementioned 90,801 infections; over 50% more.

We can use this estimate of actual infections, along with the number of deaths from the VDH, to establish a possible IFR for Virginia.

The IFR in Virginia is the number of deaths divided by the number of actual infections (estimated at 150,000). Given the UVA Health research, a likely Virginia IFR is somewhere around a 0.01476667 ratio. This is a IFR percentage of 1.48 percent.* This is almost half that of the (already inflated) CFR.

This is good news!

What this means is that the average person in Virginia who contracts COVID has a 98.52 percent chance of surviving--98.52 percent!

These numbers can be further parsed by risk factor, age, over-counts in COVID deaths, etc., to provide a deeper look into the IFR. If an individual is over 80 and has pre-existing conditions, for example, the IFR will be higher.

Is there an IFR for the US?

Interestingly, the CDC has estimated the IFR for the entirety of the US. Their estimates are even better than Virginia’s IFR. The CDC IFR is 0.68 percent.[5]

The below pic from the CDC shows the current (8/1/20) CDC IFR ratio. Multiply each scenario’s figure by 100 to get the IFR percentage.

This means that based on the CDC’s IFR an individual in the US who is infected with COVID has a 99.32 percent chance of survival--99.32 percent!

By contrast, the current CFR for the US (8/2/20) is 3.35% (based on the CDC numbers of 4,601,526 cases and 154,002 deaths).[6] It is the CFR that is most often reported as COVID’s mortality rate, not the much lower IFR.

A study by University of Stanford agrees with the CDC’s IFR estimates. “The median IFR found in this analysis is very similar to the estimate recently adopted by CDC for planning purposes.”[7][8]

In agreement with the CDC, the Stanford IFR study (and every study I’ve read) does note the following exceptions:

COVID-19 seems to affect predominantly the frail, the disadvantaged, and the marginalized – as shown by high rates of infectious burden in nursing homes, homeless shelters, prisons, meat processing plants, and the strong racial/ethnic inequalities against minorities in terms of the cumulative death risk.

But look at the Stanford study’s common sense suggestion:

Decision-makers can use measures that will try to avert having this lethal virus infect people and settings who are at high risk of severe outcomes. These measures may be possible to be more precise and tailored to specific high-risk individuals and settings than blind lockdown of the entire society.

I’ll repeat that. They are suggesting, because of the 99%+ survival rate for the general population that control measures can be “more precise and tailored to specific high-risk individuals and settings [rather] than blind lockdown of the entire society.”

Have We Gone Too Far?

Based on what we know now, have we overreacted? Given the economic devastation (especially to the less fortunate), increases in diabetes deaths, heart disease deaths, suicides, etc., do we need to reconsider the current response to the COVID threat? Shouldn’t the response be more targeted?

There are healthy individuals who, since the middle of March, have yet to leave their homes. Is this rational given a 99.32% survival rate?

Recently, The Virginian-Pilot asked its readers “what coronavirus relief measures should Congress pass while in session this month?” One reader answered:

No man, woman or child may leave home without a work pass. Everybody must wear masks and gloves if they are not within 50 yards of their (legal) home. Non-adults must be accompanied by a responsible adult; if not a legitimate adult, arrest them. Legal papers must be on their body.

Is this rational given a 99.32% survival rate?

What is fueling such responses to COVID? It certainly can’t be the fact that statistically 99.32% of those infected with COVID survive.

By way of comparison, the Ebola CFR is a shocking 40%-50%. It kills almost half those it infects.[9] (The IFR for Ebola, as with COVID, would be lower). Even if the IFR were half the CFR for Ebola, it would still be catastrophic.

Maybe a driving concern is the safety of our children.

As of the date of this writing, COVID has killed 42 children 14 years old or younger[10]. By comparison, the CDC makes the following claim about the 2017-2018 flu season:

Even though the reported number of deaths during the 2017-2018 flu season was 187, CDC’s mathematical models that account for the underreporting of flu-related deaths in children estimate the actual number was closer to 600.[11]

Given that the CDC recently rounded down the 2017-2018 flu deaths from 85,000 to 60,000[12], this means that 0.01 percent of flu deaths were children.

If COVID killed 0.01 percent of our children, given current figures (the 150,000 deaths noted above), somewhere around 1500 children would have died from COVID...far higher than current figures. We are all grateful this is not the case!

Concerning the flu, here is another comparison from the earlier cited Stanford study:

A comparison of COVID-19 to influenza is often attempted, but many are confused by this comparison unless placed in context. Based on the IFR estimates obtained here, COVID-19 may have infected as of July 12 approximately 300 million people (or more), far more than the ~13 million PCR-documented cases. The global COVID-19 death toll is still evolving, but it is still not much dissimilar to a typical death toll from seasonal influenza (290,000-650,000), while “bad” influenza years (e.g. 1957-9 and 1968-70) have been associated with 1-4 million deaths.

COVID, thankfully thus far, kills far fewer children than the 2017-2018 flu did. And the death toll (though still evolving) is “not much dissimilar” from the flu.

Given this, I wonder again: have we overreacted? Given the economic devastation (especially to the less fortunate), increases in diabetes deaths, heart disease deaths, suicides, etc., do we need to reconsider the current response to the COVID threat? Shouldn’t the response be more targeted?

Wrap-Up

The aforementioned questions deserve to be wrestled in the context of the IFR. In the current climate of media and social media driven hysteria, panic, shaming, and fear, this is rarely being done. I can’t help but wonder why.

Read For Yourself

For a one-stop-shop study on CFR and IFR, read the CEBM’s (Center for Evidence Based Medicine) study “Global Covid-19 Case Fatality Rates.” See especially the section titled, “Estimating COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rates (IFR).” Their estimate for the IFR is 0.28 percent. This means that 99.72 percent of individuals infected with COVID survive.

The study on which the CDC bases its IFR estimate is “A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates.”

You can also read the additional sources listed below.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] https://www.nbc12.com/2020/07/30/virginians-may-have-had-covid-according-uva-health-research/

[5] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

[6] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

[7] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3

[8] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v4.full.pdf+html

[9] https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

[10] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex

[11] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/children.htm

[12] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden-averted/2017-2018.htm

*Thanks to D. Mahfood for correcting a careless error I originally made when reporting Virginia’s CFR and IFR numbers. The error has been fixed.

#covid lockdown #covid-19 #Infection Mortality Rate #Death Rate

0 notes

oddinthetruth · 5 years ago

Text

Essential Aseity and the Eastern Fathers

Scholar Nathan Jacobs argues that the Eastern fathers do not hold to a view of essential aseity. Now, given the predominance of essential aseity in much Western trinitarian thought, such a view might seem rather scandalous.

Jacob’s, on the other hand, sees it as simply an entailment of the Eastern fathers moderate realism. He supports his claim by way of contrast with the Eunomian view of natures.

The Eunomian case places the principle of existence in nature rather than subject. In other words, the Eunomian instinct is that existence...is essential to the divine nature. Hence, any subject having the divine nature has existence by virtue of being divine.

On the Eunomian view, the Son who is begotten and originate, cannot be of and identical with the divine nature, which is itself the principle of existence. Aseity is proper to natures and the Son, who is begotten, is not a se. He must be of a different nature than the having-no-cause-whatsoever (a se) Father.

More than that, the Father must be “of a nature that is ontologically superior to that of the Son and the Holy Spirit--the Father being unoriginate (or a se), while the Son and the Spirit are originate (not a se).”

The Eastern fathers, on the other hand:

...being moderate realists, reject the point. Existence is never a property, accidental or essential, of natures. Existence is only ever located in subjects that give concrete reality to natures – hence their use of hypostasis, or that which exists underneath a nature.

He explains further:

...the Eastern fathers make clear that natures are mere abstractions that lack stability (stasis, playing on the term hypostasis) and thus require a hypostasis to supply concrete existence. This is why they also insist that the hypostasis is logically anterior to the nature. That is to say, the nature stands upon the individual, not vice versa. Put otherwise, individuals exist; natures subsist in individuals. And to be clear, the Eastern fathers do not make an exception for things divine.

This approach of the Eastern fathers has a startling implication:

Applied to the Trinity, this means that the Father exists a se (in himself); the divine nature subsists in the Father. Thus, there is no "essential aseity," since the divine nature does not (and cannot) exist in itself...Since aseity implies having no cause whatsoever, the term is applicable to the Father only, according to Eastern patristic thought.

This Eastern fathers’ view of natures and its application to the Trinity is what counters the Eunomian position that only the Father can be of the divine nature.

On the Eastern fathers’ view, because aseity is an incommunicable idiomata of the Father’s hypostasis, the begotten Son and spirated Spirit can both be of the divine nature.

In other words, the Son and Spirit can be both fully divine--fully identical to the divine nature--and yet remain begotten and spirated, respectively, while the Father alone is a se--”having no cause whatsoever.”

Using the logic that arises from their view of natures, Jacobs says the Eastern fathers push further into their disagreement with the Eunomian position:

The Cappadocians point out that the Eunomians commit a category error in this claim [the Father is ontologically superior because he is a se], confusing efficient cause (how a thing is) with formal cause (what a thing is). All three have the same nature but the Father has it from no one, while the Son has it by begetting and the Spirit by spiration. Just as Adam, Eve, and Abel have three different efficient causes (unbegotten of man, proceeding from Adam, and begotten of Adam) but share a common nature, and are thus ontological equals, so the divine hypostases differ in efficient cause (unbegotten, begotten, and procession) but share a common nature, being ontological equals [in other words, not subordinate].

Thoughts

If Jacob’s reading of the Eastern fathers is correct, it has important historical and theological significance for pro-Nicene logic and trinitarianism.

Importantly, for my interests, this view also accords beautifully with the strong Monarchy of the Father view of the Trinity. The one God is the Father, the a se hypostasis. He is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit (with all the appropriate qualifications, of course).

Additionally, because the Father is the principle of existence, not the divine nature, it is he that communicates his nature to the Son and the Spirit. They are identical to his divine nature. They are homoousios with him. The Father then is both the source of unity and distinction in the Trinity.

An important question is how might Jacob’s observation be understood in light of Western or Latin views that argue for the essential aseity of the Son? I’d love to hear from others on that question.

My only caution, as I’ve written about before, is that as this question is addressed that we not flatten or bend pro-Nicene trinitarianism so as to remake it in the image of current in-favor idioms.

#The Trinity #greek fathers #eastern fathers #monarchy of the father #essential aseity #hypostatic aseity #nathan jacobs

0 notes

oddinthetruth · 5 years ago

Text

Seeing “God is the Trinity” Under Every pro-Nicene Rock

The teachings of the 4th century pro-Nicene Greeks are certainly not at odds with affirmations that “God is the Trinity.” They clearly teach, for example, that there is one principle and source of creation that acts inseparably to create. We would say this is God the Trinity.

But do they explicitly teach that “God is the Trinity” or that “the one God is the Trinity?” There is disagreement about this question.

In “Response to Ayres: The Legacies of Nicaea, East and West,” John Behr argues they do not. In this brief article, he, among other things, shows why some might read the pro-Nicenes this way. He gives a specific example from Naziazen to show how Lewis Ayres reads Gregory incorrectly.

I’ll quote him at length.

For instance, Ayres quotes a passage from an oration of Gregory Nazianzen as follows:

‘A perfect Trinity consisting of three perfects, we must abandon the concept of a monad for the sake of plenitude, and go beyond a dyad (for God is beyond the duality of matter and form which constitutes material things), and we must define God as a Trinity for the sake of completeness.’

This is certainly a difficult passage to translate, and it can be done in various ways. But the passage does not include the word “God” in the original Greek, nor does it have us “defining” God (as if Gregory would have had such audacity), and certainly not “as a Trinity.” In the year before Ayre’s book appeared, the first English translation of this oration was published, which renders the passage (given here more fully...) as follows:

‘They are one in their separation and separate in their conjunction, even if this is a paradoxical statement; revered no less for their mutual relationship than when they are though of and taken individually; a perfect Trinity of three perfect entities; a monad taking its impetus from its superabundance, a dyad transcended (that is, it goes beyond the form and matter of which bodies consist), a triad defined by its perfection since it is the first to transcend the synthesis of duality in order that the Godhead might not be constricted or diffused without limit, for constriction bespeaks an absence of generosity; diffusion, an absence of order. the one is thoroughly Judaic; the other, Greek and polytheistic.’

The use of the passive, ‘is defined,’ is vital, reflecting Gregory’s theological approach more generally, that of contemplating the revelation of God in Christ by the Spirit, rather than subjecting the being of God to our limited human activity of thinking and defining, and certainly not ‘defining God as Trinity.’ Gregory was and still is regarded as one of the greatest rhetoricians--word-smiths--of the fourth century; he uses his words with care. If we are to begin to hear what he has to say, then we must pay utmost attention to how he uses his words, rather than simply hearing our own voice projected onto him.

He goes on to say, “There is, then, a very real sense in which our distinct ecclesial traditions have given us different ears to hear the texts of antiquity differently.”

He pushes the point further:

Whether God as Trinity originates in the West with Augustine or not, certainly now it characterizes the language of Western theological discourse and, because of its familiarity, becomes an unexamined presupposition in the activity of reading others.

This is a serious charge. He knows that it is.

If there is harsh criticism in my words, it reflects the challenge that Ayres’s book raises and, thereby, confirms its significance.

Behr thinks (and argues) that the stakes are high historically and theologically when “God is the Trinity” is incorrectly found under every pro-Nicene rock (my hyperbolic phrase). He makes his case for this in the above referenced article. I also think it is important for dealing with our Unitarian friends.

With respect to our question, do the pro-Nicenes explicitly teach that “God is the Trinity,” I hope we can all agree, at least, that if it is the case that Ayres is seeing things that aren’t there, we might be too.

I’ll let John Behr have the final word:

...to understand a discourse we must listen to its own idiom, with its own nodal points, rather than seeking out what we think are analogues to the idioms of our own discourse. We cannot presume that our terms and phrases (e.g., triune God) are adequate to describe what the fourth-century writers are talking about.

#John Behr #The Trinity #holy trinity #God is the Trinity

0 notes

oddinthetruth · 5 years ago

Text

Trinity Sunday and Confusion - A Few Thoughts

Today was a good day in church. Here are a few reasons why: (1) the sermon was a beautifully articulated exposition of Romans 5:1-5 from a Trinitarian perspective; (2) we recited the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381 (with a few revisions and I’m not sure this has ever been done in our church!); (3) our church body was confronted with the contributions of the Cappadocians to the doctrine of the Trinity; (4) we sang some wonderful hymns and songs that extolled the beauty of the Trinity.

And yet, based on a conversation after church, some were just a little bit confused about this Trinity business.

As I wrote about in a previous article, the confusion arises over language. Many hear this beautiful language about our God--this tri-personal God who is the Father, Son, and Spirit. We sing “holy, holy, holy...God in three persons blessed Trinity.”

Then we turn to our Bibles (Romans 5:1-5) and see “God” appear three times. Each time this “God” is one who stands in a certain relation to “our Lord Jesus Christ” and the Holy Spirit. This God is the Father.

Now, the initiated have no problem reconciling this language. But the uninitiated (those that haven’t studied the doctrine) do have trouble. It can be confusing to them.

I think I know why.

It seems to me that the uninitiated sense that the word “God” can be used in different ways, but they aren’t sure if they are allowed to do so.

Yes...you are allowed to and, in fact, you need to! “God” can properly refer to the Father, Son, Spirit, divinity/divineness, a one inseparable divine action, the one principle and source of our creation (all three persons), the one cause/principle/source of the Son and Spirit (the Father), etc.

The church needs to make it clear that we can and regularly do equivocate on the word “God” in our Trinity talk--whether that talk be found in hymns, songs, sermons, lessons, whatever. As we know, even the Bible itself equivocates on its use of “God.”

I think making the uninitiated aware that they can and should equivocate on the word “God” would be a huge relief for many. I think it would help alleviate much of the confusion that attends the variety of “God” talk that takes place in church.

#The Trinity #holy trinity #trinity sunday #god

0 notes

oddinthetruth · 5 years ago

Text

Greek pro-Nicenes: Moderate Realists

The Eunomian case places the principle of existence in nature rather than subject. In other words, the Eunomian instinct is that existence is accidental to created natures but essential to the divine nature. Hence, any subject having the divine nature has existence by virtue of being divine. The Eastern fathers, being moderate realists, reject the point. Existence is never a property, accidental or essential, of natures. Existence is only ever located in subjects that give concrete reality to natures – hence their use of hypostasis, or that which exists underneath a nature. In short, subjects exist; natures subsist (in subjects).[1]

[1] Jacobs, Nathan. “The begotten-not-made distinction in the Eastern pro-Nicenes.” p.523.

#pro-Nicenes #patristics #greek fathers #philosophy

0 notes

oddinthetruth · 5 years ago

Text

Monarchy of the Father Part 1 - The Language

In an earlier article, I bemoan the fact that too many evangelicals have never heard of the Monarchy of the Father (MOF). This is a bizarre state of affairs given the fact that MOF is virtually ubiquitous among the pro-Nicenes of the 4th century.

What I didn’t do in that article, however, is explain what MOF is actually supposed to be. In the next two articles, I’ll sketch out MOF as I currently understand it.

Part 1 will explore MOF as a way of talking about the Trinity. By this I simply mean that I will introduce the language deployed by many of the pro-Nicenes to speak of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and God.

Part 2 will explore MOF as a way of understanding the Trinity. My intent will be to unpack the logic of MOF--a logic that secures for us an orthodox Trinitarian model of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In both articles, my primary influences are the works of Athanasius, the Cappadocians, John Behr, Beau Branson, Christopher Beeley, and Richard Cross. All have been crucial partners in my search for an orthodox model of the Trinity that makes sense of Scripture and the 4th century.

I’ve also had some very helpful interactions with Skylar McManus, John Sobert Sylvest, David Mahfood, Robert Dryer, and a number of others on Theology Twitter.

These articles are meant to be a primer or introduction to MOF. I hope they might be particularly helpful for those struggling with a Trinitarianism that, among other things, seems disconnected from Scripture.

The Scriptural Disconnect

It’s no secret that conventional language used to speak about the Trinity is quite different from the language found in Scripture.

God is triune: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church believes, adores, and worships the one simple divine essence, which exists three times over, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, inseparably united in life and in action, one in everything save in their relations of origin.[1]

...the Trinity is God. God is God in this way: God’s way of being God is to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit simultaneously from all eternity, perfectly complete in a triune fellowship of love.[2]

The central dogma of Christian theology [is] that the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is one, yet self-differentiated; the God who reveals Himself to mankind is one God equally in three distinct modes of existence, yet remains one through all eternity.[3]

All of these ways of speaking are meant to affirm that the “one God” is the Trinity. Or put another way, the “one God” is a tri-personal God--one God in three persons.

Now, it’s certainly the case that there are those who understand this tri-personal God language quite well. Generally, this would be a person who is well read on the doctrine of the Trinity and its development.

Such a person typically swims in the waters of two highly respected Latins, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. He or she speaks the language of “three distinct modes of existence.” He or she can parse out this tri-personal God language and its affirmations within assorted Biblical, historical, logical, theological, and philosophical models.

Scripture, on the other hand, does not “speak of the one God as self-differentiated into three.”[4] It does not make these assorted tri-personal God articulations--”God is the Trinity,” or “He is the Trinity,” or “three persons and one essence.” It does not *call* the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together the “one God.”[5]

The problem, and this is from personal experience, is that this language can be a stumbling block for the uninitiated--even more so when they are trying to make sense of this language with a Bible in their laps or listening to the average sermon.

Aware of this problem, it is common practice to attempt to simplify this language and teach something like, God is “three who’s and one what.”

Does this help? Considering the number of personal pronouns that show up, I’m not so sure. Let me demonstrate--He, God the Trinity, is three He’s (three persons) and a “what.” That’s four he’s and a what!

A legitimate question, when teaching or catechizing the uninitiated or confused, is whether this language is the best place to start. The answer repeatedly seems to be, “Yes.” Why?

There exists a deeply embedded assumption that this tri-personal “one God in three persons” language is the only player in town (the Latin waters have a strong current). This assumption has even pervaded the way many read the Trinitarian MOF language of the 4th century.[6]

Given this assumption, it appears there are no other options for speaking about the Holy Trinity. This language is all we have and the best we have.

Yet, if we read outside of our Latin-influenced tradition and engage with Greek-influenced traditions (such as the Eastern Cappadocian Fathers), we encounter an utterly different kind of Trinitarian language--the Monarchy of the Father.

MOF Trinitarianism Language

MOF Trinitarian language has at least three ground floor affirmations:

The “one God” is the Father.

The Father, the “one God,” is the cause, source, and principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and thus the Trinity itself (thus the term, “Monarchy”).

The Son and the Holy Spirit are homoousios or consubstantial with the “one God” the Father. In other words, the Son and Spirit exemplify the “one God’s” divinity.

With respect to point one, notice that in MOF language the “one God” is not the Trinity. The “one God” is not a referent to the tri-personal God who exists in three persons. The “one God” is the Father.

In fact, identifying the Father as the “one God” is crucial to the logic of MOF Trinitarian language. We will see that in Part 2.

With respect to points two and three, the Father is seen as the cause, source, and principle of the Son and Spirit (and thus the Trinity) because of how each relate to him. In other words, to properly grasp who they are, we must know how they relate to the “one God.”

These points are specifically highlighted in the Trinitarian MOF language of the Cappadocian, Gregory of Nazianzus.

...when he gives a summary statement of his own doctrinal position he chooses to emphasize not the triune equality, as we might expect (though this is indicated), still less the unity or consubstantiality of the three persons...Gregory conspicuously anchors the identity of each ﬁgure—and the divine life altogether—in the unique role of God the Father as source and cause of the Trinity. Although it may seem striking to modern interpreters, he deﬁnes the faith in the biblical and traditional pattern of referring to God primarily as ‘‘the Father,’’ just as the creed of Nicaea had done.[7]

This language and its three basic affirmations is a language that is “ﬁrmly rooted...in the Bible.”[8] It takes its cues directly from the Scripture.

The New Testament, for example, speaks exclusively of the Father as the “one God.”

1 Corinthians 8:6a (NET) — 6a yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live...

Ephesians 4:6 (NET) — 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

1 Timothy 2:5a (NET) — 5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus... [Christ is the intermediary between the “one God,” who is the Father, and humanity]

The Bible also repeatedly speaks in terms of how the Son of God and the Holy Spirit relate to God (the Father).

Hebrews 1:3a (ESV) — 3a He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature

Colossians 1:15(ESV) — 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Philippians 2:5–6 (ESV) — 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God [the Father], did not count equality with God [the Father] a thing to be grasped,

John 5:26 (ESV) — 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

John 17:3 (ESV) — 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God [the Father], and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

John 14:16 (ESV) — 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

John 15:26 (ESV) — 26 But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

Also taking its cues from Scripture, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381 codifies this Biblical Trinitarian MOF language. Below is a sampling of this ecumenical Creed.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

Notice here, like with Scripture, that the Father is the “one God.” Notice, too, that the Son and Spirit are spoken of in terms of their relation to this “one God.”

It is also striking that the word “Trinity” and the tri-personal “God in three persons” language is not present. This is significant because it is this Creed that is affirmed by all of orthodox Christianity as the baseline for Trinitarianism.

Conclusion

So my goal has been to provide a primer or introduction to Trinitarian MOF language as I understand it. I hope I’ve succeeded. My intent is not to persuade. I just want to provide some options to those who might desperately need them.

This language, no doubt, raises some questions. What does it mean that the Son and Spirit are “caused?” Is Jesus God? Is he subordinate to the Father? Is the Holy Spirit God? Does MOF language work with the normative “one God in three persons” language? Etc.

For now, I’ll leave you with John Behr describing the Trinitarian MOF language of another Cappadocian Father, Gregory of Nyssa:

Gregory does not identify “God” as that which is common, a genus to which various particular beings belong; nor does he speak of the one God as three. Rather, “the God overall” is known specifically as “Father,” and the characteristic marks of the Son and the Spirit relate directly to him...[9]

Stay tuned for Part 2.

[1] Stephen R. Holmes. The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity (Kindle Locations 1462-1463). Kindle Edition.

[2] Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (p. 62). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

[3] F.L. Cross, ed., 3rd ed. rev. E.A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 1641.

[4] Behr, John. The Nicene Faith (p. 5). Crestwood, NY, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

[5] It doesn't preclude such language either.

[6] In The Quest for the Trinity, Stephen Holmes summarizes 4th century Trinitarianism in seven points. HIs third point assumes that the tri-personal God affirmation is a basic feature of 4th century Trinitarianism: “There are three divine hypostases that are instantiations of the [one] divine nature: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

[7] Beeley, Christopher. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God (p. 204). Oxford University Press.

[8] Ibid. p. 209.

[9] Behr, John. One God Father Almighty (p. 328). Modern Theology 34:3, July 2018.

#the trinity #monarchy of the father #cappadocians #nicene-constantinople creed #john behr #christopher beeley #one god #pro-nicene #nicene faith

0 notes

oddinthetruth · 5 years ago

Text

The Doctrine of the Trinity isn’t in the Bible and it’s not a Big Deal

A few years ago I encountered something that, at the time, seemed problematic to my Protestant sensibilities: a sobering admission concerning the doctrine of Trinity’s presence in the Bible.

The historical-critical approach is correct in a crucial and far-reaching aspect: the doctrine of the Trinity is later than the biblical texts and to suggest that the biblical writers were consciously thinking in later creedal terms is in fact a major anachronistic mistake….to read the Trinity back into the Old or even into the New Testament as concomitant with the original sense of the text is highly problematic and smooths over the manifest differences in the movement of external historical development.[1]

The Trinity does not present himself[2] to us in the Holy Scriptures in the form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.[3]

…we cannot simply proof text the linchpin doctrines of Nicene trinitarianism, such as eternal generation or the homoousion.[4]

The basic vocabulary of Trinitarian theology is not found on the surface of the text (person, nature, relation, threeness), and the conceptual elements of Trinitarianism are not gathered in one place and related to each other by Scripture itself…To call it less revealed than other doctrines is simply to admit, with calm confidence and equanimity [composure in a difficult situation], that it is not verbally formulated for us, and that some assembly is required.[5]

Obvious questions arise.

The doctrine of the Trinity (docTrinity) is “later than the biblical texts” and differs from the “original sense” of Scripture? The docTrinity, unlike the Gospel, is not even present as a basic creedal formulation “in the Holy Scriptures?”

We can’t “proof text the linchpin doctrines?” The docTrinity, as one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith, is “less revealed than other doctrines” and “some assembly is required?”

Needless to say, these admissions and questions threw me off balance. A good evangelical Protestant (especially a Baptist like me) is supposed to believe only what is in the Bible. The docTrinity isn’t in the Bible. Therefore, we shouldn’t believe it. Right?

Hold up!

This can’t be right. The orthodox church (including evangelicals) has embraced the docTrinity since at least 381. That’s almost 1700 years of Christian tradition. Doesn’t this fact alone give some warrant for embracing the docTrinity?

But what’s a good Protestant to do with these admissions that the docTrinity is not in Scripture? They press hard against Protestant sensibilities about believing only what is “in” the Bible (sola scriptura).

What’s needed here is an understanding of what such admissions affirm and negate, and a couple of definitions. First, the definitions.

What Is the Doctrine of the Trinity?

With this question I intend only to address to what the term “doctrine of the Trinity” refers. It is not my intention here to explain the concepts of the doctrine itself--its theology, grammar, logic, and philosophy.

A doctrine is simply this:

What the church of Jesus Christ believes, teaches and confesses on the basis of the word of God: this is Christian doctrine.[6]

The docTrinity, then, is what the church “believes, teaches and confesses on the basis of the word of God” about the Holy Trinity.

Doctrines of this sort, naturally, will involve a certain technical language and logic.

Importantly, doctrine:

...is studied and performed in a community of faith. [It] is something that is learned, lived, sung, preached, and renewed through the dynamic interaction between God and his people.[7]

This above point is crucial. Doctrines are forged within the “community of faith.” In the case of the docTrinity, this community is the pro-Nicene era church[8].

This means that doctrine requires more than a so-called “plain reading” of Scripture by an individual Christian reading the Bible in isolation from what has come before. Tradition matters.

While the desire to allow Scripture ‘to speak for itself’ seems noble, the attempt to do so could easily divert our attention from the divine and human agents who have worked in the historic production, redaction, dissemination, canonization, and understanding of Scripture; such an approach to Scripture risks ‘de-peopling’ the pursuit of its meaning.[9]

What about Sola Scriptura?

The fact that doctrine is hashed out by the church and isn’t simply proof texted by a Bible study group requires us to correct the caricatured view some evangelicals have concerning sola scriptura (Scripture alone).

When the Reformers spoke of sola scriptura, they meant the Bible illuminated by the Spirit in the matrix of the church. Sola scriptura is not nuda scriptura (“the bare scripture”). The Protestant confessions are indebted to the ecumenical councils and patristic theologies in every respect. Thus the Reformers’ use of Scripture is more tantamount to suprema scriptura. This means that the Bible is our primary authority, but not our only authority.[10]

Sola scriptura, then, is not at odds with the contributions of the pro-Nicene era church to the docTrinity.

The docTrinity is developed, formed, and worked out within the “matrix of the church” (the first two ecumenical councils, for example). But its “basis [and primary authority] is the word of God.”

Tradition, doctrine, and sola scriptura are not mutually exclusive.

Negations and Affirmations

Now the question of what a good Trinitarian Protestant is to do with the startling admission that the docTrinity is not in the Bible can be answered.

The answer is this: understand clearly what is not being said (negated) and what is being said (affirmed) with this admission.

Negations: So when it’s conceded that the docTrinity is not in the Bible this concession is not saying that: (1) the doctrine has no basis in the Bible; (2) the doctrine was established outside the pro-Nicene era church by a rogue group of individuals.

(1) The early Christians who first articulated the docTrinity argued forcefully from Scripture that the docTrinity is needed to maintain the integrity of the Gospel and to properly worship and esteem God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit.

Scripture was the basis of their arguments.

The major dogmatic endeavors [docTrinity] of the fourth and fifth centuries were concerned above all with establishing the correct interpretation of key biblical passages, to the point that theologians often structured their treatises around the exegesis of particular biblical texts.[11]

Additionally, the same scholars who readily concede that the docTrinity is not in the Bible also make the case that Scripture contains the building blocks,[12] pressure,[13] and seeds[14] for the docTrinity.

Even more importantly, the above argue that the docTrinity is the best explanation of the building blocks, pressures, and seeds found throughout the Old and New Testaments.[15]

(2) To concede that the docTrinity is not in the Bible is not to concede that its origin was the neurotic fixation of Constantine, his sons, or a cabal of over zealous bishops carried off by Greek philosophy.

The docTrinity is a doctrine, grounded in Scripture, that arose from over a hundred years of serious theological debate that sought to mature the church of Christ.

...pro-Nicene theologians and others aimed to read, interpret, and teach the scriptures in a way that produced spiritual growth in Christ.[16]

Vital to this spiritual growth was the theological concern for proper worship of the Holy Trinity in the life and liturgy of the church. Politics and infighting were a footnote.

Affirmations: So when it’s conceded that the docTrinity is not in the Bible this concession is affirming that it is the technical language, logic, etc., of the doctrine as taught by the church that are not in the Bible.[17]

That’s it.

Big Finish

Given a proper understanding of sola scriptura and the church’s relationship to doctrine, this admission turns out to be hardly more than a ripple. It’s not a big deal.

Really, it’s simply a reminder that the church makes doctrine. This is what the church does.

[1] Rowe, C. Kavin, Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics (Pro Ecclesia Vol. XI, No. 3) 297 & 310.

[2] I shy away from Trinitarian language that refers to the Trinity as “he.” To be honest, I can’t stand It. I prefer creedal and biblical language: One God the Father, the Son of God, and the Spirit of God. These three are the Holy Trinity.

[3] Swain, Scott, JETS 60:1, The Bible And The Trinity In Recent Thought: Review, Analysis, And Constructive Proposal.

[4] Stamps, Luke, Trinitarian Theology (edited by Keith Whitfield), Chapter 3.

[5] Sanders, Fred, The Triune God: New Studies in Dogmatics (Kindle Edition), Location 39-40.

[6] Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine), 1:1

[7] Bird, Michael, Evangelical Theology, 1.1

[8] By “pro-Nicene era church” I mean to refer to the catholic church (lowercase “c”), its ecumenical councils, and the patristic theology used to inform and write the councils’ doctrinal statements. Specifically, I have in mind the ecumenical process as it unfolded in the 4th century and culminated in the 381 Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

[9] Gordon, Joseph K., Divine Scripture in Human Understanding, 29.

[10] Bird, Michael, Evangelical Theology, 1.6.2.4

[11] Beeley, Christopher & Weedham, Mark (editors), The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology, 8.

[12] Attridge, Harold, The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology: Chapter 3 Trinitarian Theology and the Fourth Gospel, 72.

[13] Row, C. Kavin, Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics (Pro Ecclesia Vol. XI, No. 3), 311.

[14] Hurtado, L. W., God in New Testament Theology (Kindle Edition), Location 1035-1039.

[15] There so many examples that it would require another article or two to deal with just some of them. A quick example would be Hebrews 1:3. Christ is the radiance of the glory of God (the Father). Was God the Father ever without his glory? Was there ever a time that the Father’s glory wasn’t radiating. This text pressures us (especially in tandem with so many other texts) to see the Son as always being present with the Father. To say that the Son wasn’t always present with the Father is to say that the Father was without his glory.

[16] Beeley, Christopher & Weedham, Mark (editors), The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology, 11.

[17] Examples of technical features of the doctrine include inseparable operations, eternal generation, and homoousion. These are not explicitly taught in a verse somewhere in Scripture.

#Holy Trinity #Christianity #hermenuetics #exegesis #patristics #protestant #in the Bible #doctrine #The Trinity #bible interpretation

0 notes

oddinthetruth · 5 years ago

Text

Patristic Exegesis

This is a fantastic bit of insight on Patristic exegesis from Beeley and Weedman: The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology.

For most theologians of this period, the ultimate purpose of biblical exegesis was spiritual in nature. Following a method pioneered by Origen, pro-Nicene theologians and others aimed to read, interpret, and teach the scriptures in a way that produced spiritual growth in Christ. Augustine’s major work The Trinity illustrates this method beautifully. As Augustine explains at the outset, the entire work depends on the correct interpretation of the scriptures about Christ and consequently about the Trinity as a whole. The work opens with an account of orthodox Christological hermeneutics, a method of reading all biblical statements about Christ as applying to the divine Son of God, either apart from the incarnation or within it, just as Gregory Nazianzen and Cyril of Alexandria had articulated previously Interpreted in this way, the scriptures provide both the Christian understanding of the Trinity, doctrinally speaking, as well as the spiritual participation in the Trinity that will be fulfilled only in the eschaton, when believers will know the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit face to face. By allowing themselves to be formed by God’s self-communication in the language of scripture, Christians are thus enabled to move from the earthly concepts and images, which typically mislead on account of sin, to the transcendent God to which they properly refer. This process of interpretation produces both faith and spiritual purification. Within this framework and to these ends, the rest of Augustine’s work addresses many of the controversial scriptural passages that had arisen in the previous trinitarian controversy.

#hermenuetics #patristics #christopher beeley #bible #the trinity #holy trinity #bible interpretation

3 notes · View notes

oddinthetruth · 5 years ago

Text

Monarchy of the Father - Never Heard of It?

The Monarchy of the Father (MOF), it can be argued, is the Trinitarian grammar of the 4th century and “lies at the heart of fourth-century Trinitarian orthodoxy.”[1]

It is “the foundational principle of Trinitarian logic, the fundamental dynamic that gives meaning to the grammatical aspects of unity and distinctness within the Trinity, and also the basic shape of the divine economy, by which the eternal God is known.”[2]

It’s the soundtrack of the 4th century. It’s presence in pro-Nicene thinking is ubiquitous—accepted “by literally all of the fourth century church fathers who lie at the source of the ‘official’ formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.”[3]

You’ve never heard of it?

The remarkable fact of much evangelical Protestant Trinitarianism is that MOF is largely ignored. Search or take a look in the subject index (if there is one) for “Monarchy of the Father” in just about any such book. I’d wager a cup of Keurig coffee you won’t find the term.

There are, of course, some such books on the Trinity that do briefly mention the “Monarchy of the Father.” Two that come to mind are “Essays on the Trinity” edited by Lincoln Harvey and “The Quest for the Trinity” by Stephen Holmes.

Holmes even helpfully makes a distinction between the Monarchy of the Father as understood “within the divine life”--the internal life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--and a monarchy that “...is the shared possession of the three hypostases.”[5]

However, the phrase is not in Fred Sanders’ book. It’s not in Michael Reeves book. It’s not in Kenneth Myers’ book. It’s not in James White’s book. It’s not in Keith Whitfield’s edited volume, Trinitarian Theology.

This MOF neglect persists in spite of the fact that: (1) Monarchy of the Father alone grammar is foundational to the thinking of Gregory of Nazianzus[4]—the bishop who led the 381 ecumenical council that gave orthodoxy the Constantinople Creed; (2) its presence in much Eastern Orthodox discourse for the last 1700+ years; (3) its endorsement by several well-respected modern scholars such as John Behr.

Further evidence of this neglect is evident in attempts to reinterpret or re-define MOF in modern Protestant treatments. For example, Tom Torrance argues “since the whole Godhead is in the Son and in the Spirit, they must be included with the Father in the one originless Source of the Trinity.”[6] Such a stance runs counter to the orthodox pro-Nicene view that requires that the Father be the cause and source of the Son, Spirit, and thus the Trinity.

On occasion, some Protestant academics appear to affirm MOF. Scholars like Scott Swain and Malcolm Yarnell endorse a “taxis” or “proper order” in the Trinity. They see the Father as the “principle" or “frontal source” in this “proper order.”[7] Such language hints at MOF.

However, this nod at MOF seems only to be shorthand for an affirmation of eternal generation. In other words, they just affirm the two relations of origins (or processions)--generation and spiration. Such an affirmation also entails the Father’s first place in a “proper order” as the unbegotten. All of this is true of course, but I think falls well short of a full blown pro-Nicene MOF.

Read the next installment here: Monarchy of the Father Part 1 - The Language

[1] Christopher Beeley. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God; 209.

[2] Ibid. 217.

[3] Beau Branson. The Neglected Doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father, and Its Implications for the Analytic Debate about the Trinity.

[4] Christopher Beeley. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God; 201-217.

[5] Stephen R. Holmes. The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity (Kindle Location 1753). Kindle Edition.

[6] Torrance. The Christian Doctrine of God; 141.

[7] Keith S. Whitfield. Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application.

#theology #philosophy #christianity #metaphysics #holy trinity #monarchy of the father #nanzianzus #381 creed #the trinity

0 notes