Social Trinitarian?

[earl40]

Not wanting to interupt the thread on "Definition of Person as it relates to the Trinity" http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/definition-person-relates-trinity-85593/ (great thread BTW)

Is this a term and a belief that is held by the majority of Christians today in your opinion. Me being one of them so far as the # of wills in God, until I heard of this and thought it trough. If so should our elders adress this problem in our churches or assemblies?

The more I look into this area it is apparent that I should have had in mind the "as if" or other small phrases that describe what an anology "is not" as it pertains to the divine essence.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Let me take this opportunity to say that even if Social Trinitarianism is deficient in its formulation of the unity of the Godhead (and I think that it is), this is not the same kind of error that we've been talking about with modalism.

We may think that Augustine (or many others in the West) over-stressed God's unity (at the expense of his diversity) or that certain Eastern brothers over-stressed the threeness (at the expense of his unity), but none of these denied that God is three and that God is one. Social Trinitarians do not deny this either, though we may argue whether their formulations properly account for unity.

I am not downplaying the importance of getting this right, as someone may well wonder about, given the vigorous defense that some of us recently gave to orthodox Trinitarian theology on this board (in the "Wading Pool"). I am, rather, arguing, that there is a world of difference in confessing that God is three and one at the same time and yet being unclear about how this is best to be formulated.

This is a matter of degree: one may argue that Augustine or Barth or Van Til--to choose three rather different figures--downplayed the threeness of God, yet no one seriously thinks that they are heretics who deny the Trinity. Now I think that Social Trinitarianism's "loving relationship" is pretty thin as the basis of unity but many of them also simply regard the basis of unity as a mystery that alludes them. But none of these folk are denying the Trinity, though they may have some formulations in their Trinitarian theology that is problematic. Again, I am not saying that it's unimportant. I am simply saying that it does not render them a heretic like modalism or Arianism does.

Modalism simply denies that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, even as Arianism simply denies that Christ is God as much as the Father is God. I hope, Earl, that you don't think that I am highjacking your thread, or even want to do such a thing. I simply think that this may be a good place to point out that all unbiblical formulations are not equal and that there is a great difference between denying the Trinity as to its essential threeness or oneness as opposed to not properly formulating it (there are many orthodox folk who are not always clear on the formulation of the relationship between Christ's deity and humanity but they truly do confess both so as not to be Nestorian or Eutychian).

Having said all of this, do I think that our churches need to be clearer on (and thus taught clearly on) Theology and Christology with respect to these things? I absolutely do! Our doctrinal standards are quite clear on these matters, yet it's often seldom taught in many churches. It should be. There's no reason that our people should not be doctrinely astute when it comes to our God and to the Incarnation of our Lord. Strategies for making certain that people do understand might make another interesting thread.

Peace,
Alan

 

[RamistThomist]

It's getting more popular because "community" is a hip buzz word. Dogmatically, the established traditions (Rome, EO, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, 1689 Baptist) officially reject social trinitarianism because it is tritheism.

 

[earl40]

I hope, Earl, that you don't think that I am highjacking your thread, or even want to do such a thing. I simply think that this may be a good place to point out that all unbiblical formulations are not equal and that there is a great difference between denying the Trinity as to its essential threeness or oneness as opposed to not properly formulating it (there are many orthodox folk who are not always clear on the formulation of the relationship between Christ's deity and humanity but they truly do confess both so as not to be Nestorian or Eutychian).

Having said all of this, do I think that our churches need to be clearer on (and thus taught clearly on) Theology and Christology with respect to these things? I absolutely do! Our doctrinal standards are quite clear on these matters, yet it's often seldom taught in many churches. It should be. There's no reason that our people should not be doctrinely astute when it comes to our God and to the Incarnation of our Lord. Strategies for making certain that people do understand might make another interesting thread.

Peace,
Alan

I think you did anything but hijack. As always I love hearing from you because you express yourself so well, and also adressed some of my questions in an informative manner.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Dogmatically, the established traditions (Rome, EO, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, 1689 Baptist) officially reject social trinitarianism because it is tritheism.

Well, Jacob, I don't think that this is quite accurate.

Are there social Trinitarians clearly outside of any Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan construct? Indeed, there are. Is this true of all? I don't think that's as clear. What's called ST is not monolithic and is a construct of the 20th century (proposed over against other 20th century constructs deemed to overly emphasize oneness).

To put it as you did, "dogmatically, the established traditions officially reject ST because it is tritheism" is not quite the case, since none of them have dogmatically explicitly interacted with ST. Please don't hear me defending this, because I think it is at best unhelpful and confused (wrong, to be sure) and at worse is heresy.

But my whole purpose here was to say that one cannot, in my view, place ST simpliciter in the same category as modalism or Arianism, to use two examples. As a matter of ecclesiastical history, it is not the case that all of orthodoxy has condemned this in the same way that it has condemned those errors.

In my view, I disagree with ST and find it in its best form to have, at least, heretical tendencies. But I am unaware of specific ecclesiastical determinations of heresy and condemnation on that basis, which is not true of modalism and Arianism.

Peace,
Alan

 

[RamistThomist]

Dogmatically, the established traditions (Rome, EO, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, 1689 Baptist) officially reject social trinitarianism because it is tritheism.

Well, Jacob, I don't think that this is quite accurate.

Are there social Trinitarians clearly outside of any Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan construct? Indeed, there are. Is this true of all? I don't think that's as clear. What's called ST is not monolithic and is a construct of the 20th century (proposed over against other 20th century constructs deemed to overly emphasize oneness).

To put it as you did, "dogmatically, the established traditions officially reject ST because it is tritheism" is not quite the case, since none of them have dogmatically explicitly interacted with ST. Please don't hear me defending this, because I think it is at best unhelpful and confused (wrong, to be sure) and at worse is heresy.

But my whole purpose here was to say that one cannot, in my view, place ST simpliciter in the same category as modalism or Arianism, to use two examples. As a matter of ecclesiastical history, it is not the case that all of orthodoxy has condemned this in the same way that it has condemned those errors.

In my view, I disagree with ST and find it in its best form to have, at least, heretical tendencies. But I am unaware of specific ecclesiastical determinations of heresy and condemnation on that basis, which is not true of modalism and Arianism.

Peace,
Alan

Hi Prof Strange,

I was taking my cue on ST from Jurgen Moltmann's Trinity and Kingdom. He sees the Trinity as a community of three Subjects. This departs from the received model of a unity of mind, will, and energy of operation with the essence. Even Gregory of Nyssa, the most social of the Cappadocians, still held to a single divine subject.

You are correct that earlier traditions pre-Moltmann didn't address ST, but to the degree that they followed the unity of mind/will/operation they implicitly rejected ST

Peace

 

[jwright82]

Y

Not wanting to interupt the thread on "Definition of Person as it relates to the Trinity" http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/definition-person-relates-trinity-85593/ (great thread BTW)

Is this a term and a belief that is held by the majority of Christians today in your opinion. Me being one of them so far as the # of wills in God, until I heard of this and thought it trough. If so should our elders adress this problem in our churches or assemblies?

The more I look into this area it is apparent that I should have had in mind the "as if" or other small phrases that describe what an anology "is not" as it pertains to the divine essence.

I mean we must keep the distinction between God as is in Himself and God as He has revealed Himself to us by way of of condescension. That being said I wonder what problem ST in its best form is supposed to solve? What was/is wrong with previous articulations?

 

[RamistThomist]

Y

Not wanting to interupt the thread on "Definition of Person as it relates to the Trinity" http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/definition-person-relates-trinity-85593/ (great thread BTW)

Is this a term and a belief that is held by the majority of Christians today in your opinion. Me being one of them so far as the # of wills in God, until I heard of this and thought it trough. If so should our elders adress this problem in our churches or assemblies?

The more I look into this area it is apparent that I should have had in mind the "as if" or other small phrases that describe what an anology "is not" as it pertains to the divine essence.

I mean we must keep the distinction between God as is in Himself and God as He has revealed Himself to us by way of of condescension. That being said I wonder what problem ST in its best form is supposed to solve? What was/is wrong with previous articulations?

Depends on which adherent you ask. Jurgen Moltmann will say that ST is egalitarian and thus advances the state of women in society or the church. Ironically, guys like Bruce Ware use a similar ST-like argument to argue for complementarianism. (I'm not saying that Bruce Ware is an ST, but he makes similar moves in application to Moltmann).

On a broader level, it's supposed to show how important community is.

 

[jwright82]

I see the traditional view as providing a perfect analogically based foundation for community. So is this trend modernish? I'm not real familiar with it.

 

[earl40]

Y

Not wanting to interupt the thread on "Definition of Person as it relates to the Trinity" http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/definition-person-relates-trinity-85593/ (great thread BTW)

Is this a term and a belief that is held by the majority of Christians today in your opinion. Me being one of them so far as the # of wills in God, until I heard of this and thought it trough. If so should our elders adress this problem in our churches or assemblies?

The more I look into this area it is apparent that I should have had in mind the "as if" or other small phrases that describe what an anology "is not" as it pertains to the divine essence.

I mean we must keep the distinction between God as is in Himself and God as He has revealed Himself to us by way of of condescension. That being said I wonder what problem ST in its best form is supposed to solve? What was/is wrong with previous articulations?

Not being well versed the the official view of what ST is I can only say that most Christians view The Trinity as each person working with 3 different wills and interacting as 3 different persons, as men do. This essentially breaks down into what I view as a form of polytheism, though I do understand when asked and pressed into the rational ramifications of such thinking they will strongly deny any form of polytheism. For this I am thankful for as Pastor Strange points out with with the connection with modalism "But none of these folk are denying the Trinity, though they may have some formulations in their Trinitarian theology that is problematic". Like modalism the polytheism that arises out of ST is In my most humble opinion a neglect to think of God "as if" He were 3 persons and to not understand the value of apophatic theology.

 

[jwright82]

Y

Not wanting to interupt the thread on "Definition of Person as it relates to the Trinity" http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/definition-person-relates-trinity-85593/ (great thread BTW)

Is this a term and a belief that is held by the majority of Christians today in your opinion. Me being one of them so far as the # of wills in God, until I heard of this and thought it trough. If so should our elders adress this problem in our churches or assemblies?

The more I look into this area it is apparent that I should have had in mind the "as if" or other small phrases that describe what an anology "is not" as it pertains to the divine essence.

I mean we must keep the distinction between God as is in Himself and God as He has revealed Himself to us by way of of condescension. That being said I wonder what problem ST in its best form is supposed to solve? What was/is wrong with previous articulations?

Not being well versed the the official view of what ST is I can only say that most Christians view The Trinity as each person working with 3 different wills and interacting as 3 different persons, as men do. This essentially breaks down into what I view as a form of polytheism, though I do understand when asked and pressed into the rational ramifications of such thinking they will strongly deny any form of polytheism. For this I am thankful for as Pastor Strange points out with with the connection with modalism "But none of these folk are denying the Trinity, though they may have some formulations in their Trinitarian theology that is problematic". Like modalism the polytheism that arises out of ST is In my most humble opinion a neglect to think of God "as if" He were 3 persons and to not understand the value of apophatic theology.

Nicely stated. I agree with your assessment of things. I only wonder what problem ST is supposed to solve. Thanks though.

 

[earl40]

I believe it was supposed to solve the problem of modalism with a form of polytheism albeit not with intention. I find this problem when we do not keep in mind, or verbalize correctly, what the creeds teach.

 

[jwright82]

I believe it was supposed to solve the problem of modalism with a form of polytheism albeit not with intention. I find this problem when we do not keep in mind, or verbalize correctly, what the creeds teach.

Yeah I go with the creeds as well. Especially the Athanasion creed. I think that some of these supposed "solutions" to some problem, albeit with the best of intentions (which I think must always be kept in mind when criticizing someone), can at times metaphorically throw the baby out withe bath water.