On the Trinity
Tom Hale
The concept of the Trinity is undoubtably a fundamental part of the Christian Faith . Followers of Christ begin their journey with baptism in the name of the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit . However , the concept of the Trinity itself is complicated , especially in the political connotations of its origins . Furthermore , unlike many other core tenets of the Christian faith , the term “ Trinity ” is never explicitly described in the Bible .
Instead , our modern understanding of the Trinity is derived primarily from a series of councils in the early church from 300-700 AD , in particular the First Council at Nicaea of 325 AD . The three hundred bishops in attendance agreed on what would become the Nicene Creed , which essentially states the following : that God consists of three persons , the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit ; that all are equally God and of the same substance ; and that none created the other .
These statements , although controversial in and of themselves , are complicated even further by the unfortunate context of the councils that passed them . On the one hand , the Nicene Council and others like it were called to unify the early church and prevent the spread of certain dangerous heresies . On the other hand , these councils were political in nature , called with the intent of solidifying and unifying the church as a political tool . In the case of the Nicene Council , the political nature is especially egregious : the council was called by Constantine the Great with the obvious intent of creating a single , united church . Constantine himself , although an early convert , would not be baptized until his deathbed .
This raises obvious problems as to the legitimacy and authority of the Council . One need not look far to find dangerous examples of religion and politics mixing . How then can one trust the outcome of such a heavily politicized gathering ?
In considering the authority of the Nicene Creed , it is important to note that although Constantine assembled the council , he exerted no major influence on its outcome and had no vested interest in the result — as long as the result was unanimous , that is . Meanwhile , the actual bishops assembled had a real interest in producing a text consistent with their best understanding of Biblical teachings . In other words , the Council being called for political reasons isn ’ t necessarily a good reason to dismiss its outcome , and the Biblical foundation of the Creed they produced is an excellent reason to accept it ( Councils and Creeds , David Wright ).
This in turn produces another problem : how Biblical is the concept of the Trinity ? After all , the actual term “ Trinity ” never occurs in the Bible and the concept of the Trinity is barely even implicitly present in the Old Testament .
Johannes Wolleb , a 17th-century Swiss theologian , has the following comments : “ this objection [ that the Trinity cannot be read in the Bible ] can be raised against every dogma and against theology in general … It would also have to be raised against proclamation [ of the gospel ], which does not stop at the mere reading of Scripture but goes on to explain it too ( Barth 308-309 ).
In other words , any understanding of our faith requires a degree of extrapolation from Scripture ; the Trinity is no different . Karl Barth , another Swiss theologian widely considered to be the greatest reformed thinker of the twentieth century , builds on this idea in his Church Dogmatics : “ The Bible can no more contain the dogma of the Trinity explicitly than it can contain other dogmas explicitly . For its witness , which was given in a specific historical situation or in many such , does indeed confront erring humanity generally as the witness to revelation , but it does not confront the specific errors of Church history as such ( Barth 310 ).
Barth goes on to say that we cannot “ prove the truth of the dogma that is not as such in the Bible merely from the fact that it is a dogma , but rather from the fact that we can and must regard it as a good interpretation of the Bible ” ( 310 ). In other words , simply because the Bible does not explicitly contain Trinitarian doctrine doesn ’ t mean that Trinitarian doctrine is false . Indeed , if you interpret the Bible as being written in a specific time period and as addressing specific human mistakes it follows that the Bible does not and should not contain a comprehensive list of human errors , leaving significant portions up to human interpretation ( with the guidance of the Spirit ). This makes intuitive sense and has significant precedent , especially in light of the New Testament . After Christ ’ s ascension the apostles go on to create what is essentially dogma ; consider Paul ’ s words in regard to circumcision ( Acts 15 ) and meat sacrificed to idols ( 1 Cor 8 ).
As important as interpreted dogma may be , it is still crucial that it refers back to the scriptures . Just as the Apostles refer back to the Old Testament , so must our dogma refer back to the scriptures . As such , the Trinity is most clear in the rite of baptism . Matthew 28:19 is widely referred to as a key reference : " Therefore go and make disciples of all nations , baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit .” Indeed , Christ ’ s own baptism is Trinitarian : “ As Jesus [ the Son ] was coming up out of the water , he saw heaven being torn open
22 Spring 2018