[W]e should distinguish between the Trinity and the doctrine of the Trinity. God the Trinity may well be incomprehensible and ineffable. Yet doctrines of God, which are human statements in human language, are meant to be understood. Doctrines–even the doctrine of the Trinity–are supposed to make sense.
Tarmo Toom. Classical Trinitarian Theology, (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 9.
B”H
See also this post.
Advertisement
Amen.
The treasure is there, but the process of discovery can present its own challenges.
Stan: I second that Amen!
TC: “It is God’s privelage to conceal things and the king’s privelage to discover them.” (Prov. 25:2, NLT) :)
Faith is in the Trinity not in the doctrine
Andrew: Amen. The doctrine is just the means of articulating our faith in God.
I think it is fine if there is an element of mystery there but on the whole, we should have a basic understanding of trinitarian dynamics.
Brian: I agree. The mystery is the how and the why but I’m ok with not knowing the answers to either.
That’s an interesting statement. He seems to say that doctrines are merely man made (and contextual maybe) and that even so we should make sure they make sense (which seems reasonable). I wonder though how close of a connection he sees between the doctrine of the Trinity and the actual Trinity since he seems to believe that the Trinity may be incomprehensible and indescribable.
What do you think?
Bryan
Bryan: It seems to me that he’s saying that God is so far beyond us that we’ll never figure him out (which I think most people would agree with), but also that we’re fully capable of taking what God has revealed about himself (in Scripture and salvation history) and formulating it into something that we can understand and talk about.
I don’t know Nick. Maybe you have a wider context to understand him in but I didn’t pick that up from this short quote.
He says “Trinity may well be incomprehensible and ineffable.”
If that is the case then isn’t a doctrine of the Trinity either subjective or proof that the Trinity isn’t incomprehensible and indescribable?
If God is incomprehensible and indescribable then how can he reveal himself in a way that can be communicated and understood by others?
Also his statement about doctrines being human statements in human language makes me wonder what his view is on the formulation of doctrine. But that is another subject.
Bryan
That depends on who is the agent here, the person who means. If the agent is the human theologian who formulated the doctrine, then the statement is obviously true – well, maybe not obviously, as I suppose that some of the theologians who obfuscate do it deliberately. But if the agent is God, that is a different matter. If God did not intend us to understand the Trinity, but intended it to be a mystery beyond human comprehension, then he cannot intend that there will be a comprehensible and adequate formulated doctrine of the Trinity, and by trying to formulate one we humans are overreaching ourselves like the builders of the Tower of Babel. That analogy could even explain the confusion of language which has theologians today talking past one another!
Bryan: Well, seeing as how I have the book I think it’s safe to say I do have a wider context to understand him in. He ends the paragraph by saying: “With God’s help, we hope it will.” [i.e., make sense]
But I think he’s quite clear in the quote. There’s a difference between God (i.e., the Trinity) and our speech about God (i.e., the doctrine of the Trinity). We’ll never be able to understand everything about God (he’s God!), but that should not hinder us from talking about him and understanding what it is that we can say.
I don’t know why those would be the only options. I think we can say that God as God is incomprehensible, meaning that according to our own knowledge we won’t be able to understand him. But that’s where God’s self-revelation (both in the person and work of Christ and in Scripture) comes in. Without God’s self-revelation we’d be left speaking about him like Aristotelians or neo-Platonists (i.e., as the “One” or the “Unmoved Mover” or some other such impersonal and broad term) — that’s the result of natural theology. We can say that there is a God but we can’t say who it is. But the result of special revelation is that we are able to say something more about God that we wouldn’t have known otherwise.
Also, from the broader context he’s not using ‘ineffable’ to mean “incapable of description in words” but rather in the sense of “not to be spoken of because of its sacredness.” This follows some quotes from Origen, Martin Luther, and Clement of Alexandria.
Peter: I’m not sure I understand your point. Rephrase it for me if you can.
I understand what you’re getting at. I’m just having fun with some experiments in hermeneutics and interpretation. ; )
Bryan
Yesterday, my mother-in-law (English major) and I decided to begin work on co-authoring a book on the Trinity.
I hunger for people to understand in the I-15 corridor of the Intermountain West.
Bryan: Cool.
Todd: That’s great. If you ever need a proof reader or are looking for some opinions then let me know.
Nick, I’m not sure it is worth rephrasing this because I know from other discussions that you completely disagree with me. But let’s put it this way, perhaps a bit stronger than I would completely assert but along the same lines:
God did not intend us to understand the Trinity, but intended it to be a mystery beyond human comprehension. Therefore he does not intend that there will be a comprehensible and adequate formulated doctrine of the Trinity. So, by trying to formulate one we humans are overreaching ourselves like the builders of the Tower of Babel. Perhaps as a result of that God has taken action to confuse the language of theologians.
Do you understand now what I am saying?
Peter: Yeah, I see what you’re saying. And of course I do totally disagree, but it makes me wonder, what could we say that God wanted us to understand? What you’re saying could be applied across the board so that essentially all attempts at formulating doctrine would be futile.
I would suggest that all attempts at formulating doctrine which go beyond what is written in Scripture are futile. At the very best they should be considered speculative matters and never applied as doctrinal tests or put forward as conditions for salvation.
Now you might argue that the doctrine of the Trinity does not go beyond Scripture. But I don’t think Scripture gives you the basis for formulating it tightly enough to reject e.g. Oneness Pentecostals. I don’t agree with their teaching, but I don’t think we should presume, as I think you have on another thread, to claim that they cannot be saved.
Peter: I don’t claim that Oneness Pentecostals cannot be saved, only that while they reject the Trinity that they are not saved. Of course they can repent of this. But I think that there is more than enough in Scripture to condemn the belief that Jesus is the Father, and also their works based idea of salvation (i.e., the necessity of water baptism to be saved & the necessity of speaking in tongues to claim one has the Holy Spirit).
Nick, my point was of course that Oneness Pentecostals don’t need to become Trinitarians to be saved. But I agree that I would wonder about the salvation of anyone who claimed that water baptism is a requirement for salvation.
Peter: I know, and I do disagree. The funny thing is that I’d probably think there’s more leeway on doctrines of baptism than on doctrines of God.
My point about baptism is nothing to do with doctrine but more to do with what one trusts in for salvation. I doubt the salvation of those who trust for salvation in any kind of ceremony, or any kind of doctrine, belief or work, rather than in the finished work of Christ appropriated only by faith.
Peter: But now we’ve come full circle. If salvation is contingent upon a proper object of faith (i.e. Jesus) then it matters a great deal what we believe about that. The simple fact is that the Father did not become incarnate and die on the cross (Sabellianism) nor is the Father simply the divine nature of Jesus (modern Oneness belief). But in any event, this isn’t a post about Oneness Pentecostals and their salvation so I’ll refrain from continuing along these lines.