Trinity as Standard

Random Thoughts, Trinity, Unitarianism

It strikes me that Unitarians seem to consistently define themselves in opposition to Trinitarians. Their theology is consistently compared to ours. The point is always that ours is wrong and theirs is right, but they can’t seem to manage to define themselves apart from us, perhaps they can, but I haven’t seen it. Trinitarians on the other hand don’t seem to have that problem. We define ourselves with reference to Scripture and without regard for competing theological systems. We don’t need to point out what’s wrong with Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or Socinian theologies to show what’s right with Trinitarian theology. It would seem strange to have to constantly mention later aberrant theologies in our self-definition. If Unitarianism is the default, then why the constant mention of Trinitarianism? It seems that Trinitarianism is taken as the standard almost axiomatically and then it has to be argued against. This makes sense since all corruptions of the truth have to start with the truth.

B”H

11 thoughts on “Trinity as Standard”

  1. Nick: Well said! And that’s not just an abstract observation, as you know, but a very real, very obvious fact to anyone who has ever had an extended dialogue with a Unitarian. If a Unitarian group was to actually come together and codify some kind of creed, you can bet that “We deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity” would make the cut. (I suppose Islam comes pretty close to this, actually)

  2. Tom: Well, they have the Racovian Catechism, but a denial of the Trinity is included in it:

    The principal thing is to guard against falling into the common error, wherein it is maintained, with palpable contradiction, that there is in God only ONE essence, but that he has three persons.

    Prove to me that in the one essence of God, there is but one Person ?

    This indeed may be seen from hence, that the essence of God is one, not in kind but in number. Wherefore it cannot, in any way, contain a plurality of persons, since a person is nothing else than an individual intelligent essence. Wherever, then, there exist three numerical persons, there must necessarily, in like manner, be reckoned three individual essences; for in the same sense in which it is affirmed that there is one numerical essence, it must be held that there is also one numerical person.

    And it goes on and on…

  4. Tom: You’ll find that modern Socinians haven’t advanced their arguments against the early Socinians. You’ve heard everything that followed that quotation anyway.

  6. Hi Nick. I think a big reason that Unitarians refer to the Trinity is that it has become the dominant conception of the Godhead within Christianity. Also, I disagree with your claim that Trinitarians don’t define themselves by using other theological systems as a foil. They try to explain that God can be one, and yet be three persons. Here, they are responding to the view that one means one person. They are trying to show that one can be understood differently.

  7. Fr. Robert: Yup.

    James: That’s my point. Unitarians recognize Trinitarianism as the standard. They don’t like that it’s the standard but they can’t get away from it. And explaining that God is both one God and three persons isn’t using other theological systems as a foil; it’s explaining the Biblical data.

Leave a comment