1/10. What does it mean to be Trinitarian?
What we learn from the 20th century is that not all forms of trinitarian theology are orthodox. It is very possible to be a non-Nicene Trinitarian. So, what does it mean to confess the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity today?
What we learn from the 20th century is that not all forms of trinitarian theology are orthodox. It is very possible to be a non-Nicene Trinitarian. So, what does it mean to confess the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity today?
2/10. In this thread I will critique an inadequate approach to trin. theol. that I call “thin Trinitarianism” & in a 2nd thread I will describe a more adequate approach that I call “thick Trinitarianism.” I suggest that a "thin" app. has led to a failure to pass on orthodoxy.
3/10. An example of thin Trinitarianism is Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology. He defines the doc. of the Trinity as:
(1)God is 3 persons.
(2)Each person is fully God.
(3)There is one God.
(1)God is 3 persons.
(2)Each person is fully God.
(3)There is one God.
4/10. A 2nd def. is Oliver Crisp. He defines Trinitarianism as:
“(T1) There is exactly one God;
(T2) there are exactly 3 coeternal persons “in” God: the Father, the Son, & the HS;
(T3) the F, the S, & the HS are not identical;
(T4) the F, the S, & the HS are consubstantial.”
“(T1) There is exactly one God;
(T2) there are exactly 3 coeternal persons “in” God: the Father, the Son, & the HS;
(T3) the F, the S, & the HS are not identical;
(T4) the F, the S, & the HS are consubstantial.”
5/10. Both of them extract certain propositions from the tradition, arrange them in logical order & discuss their logical relations. They do not discuss the issues under debate in the 4th cen. in depth or the significance of the exact wording of the creeds of 325 & 381.
6/10. Neither discuss the hermeneutical strategies used to refute the Arians or the metaphysical implications of these strategies. They do not seek to grasp the pro-Nicene “culture” of the day or provide a thick des. of the process of thot that led to the wording of the Creed.
7/10. Neither definition is ‘wrong’ as such. But neither is adequate for passing on the Nicene tradition intact. They seem to presume that a core of rational propositions can be lifted out of the 4th cen. context & stated in such a way that moderns will understand what they mean.
8/10. When these sorts of definitions are read in the context of post-Kantian constructivism & philosophical naturalism, they no longer mean what they meant to Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzus or Augustine.
9/10. When they are evaluated on the basis of historical critical herm, they seem inadequate, which leads to a sense that they need to be stripped down to bare essentials lest we be “reading things into” the Bible. This then opens the door to errors such as social Trinitarianism.
10/10. Thin Trinitarianism needs to be nourished by the hermeneutical strategies, metaphysical concepts & doctrines that together make up the pro-Nicene culture of the 4th century. A more substantial acct. of Trinitarianism is necessary to pass on the tradition successfully.
