doctrine #2 - the trinity

Question: How has the concept of the Trinity in Christianity affected relations with other monotheistic faiths?

In considering and reflecting on this question, it seems prudent to identify the two other major monotheistic faiths as Islam and Judaism – both of which consider Christian Trinitarian doctrine heretical, and therefore a severe stumbling block to relations at this level.

Islam apparently focuses on Deuteronomy 6:4 (McGrath, 247), where the Hebrew God clearly indicates that the Lord is one. The assumption is, therefore, that by proposing that Jesus and the Spirit are both God also, Christians accept a tritheistic stance. However, this assumption is obviously flawed and counter to accepted theology: Tertullian, in particular, hammered out the axiom that the Trinitus is made up of three personae with unius substantae.

For Judaism, the Christian Trinity has an immediate heresy: that of recognizing Christ as the Son, and therefore the Messiah. Interestingly though, the Law and the Prophets – that is, the Old Testament Scriptures – lay down firm foundations for Trinitarian Doctrine (McGrath, 248; De Colle, 122) through three personifications of the God of the Hebrews: the personification of Wisdom (especially in Job, Proverbs etc.), active in creation; the Word of God, going forth into the world to confront man throughout the OT; and the Spirit of God, His presence and power within creation. If only Judaism paid heed to the Johannic Logos – where that very same “Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us” (John 1:14) they might recognise Jesus for what He was – begotten of the Father, who with that same Father and the Spirit make up our triune, paradoxical Godhead.



Bibliography
R De Colle, ‘The Triune God’ in C Gunton, (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, (Cambridge: CUP, 1998), pp. 243-71.
A McGrath, Christian Thelogy: An Introduction, fourth ed. (Oxford: Blackwell 2007) pp. 243-71.

---

doctrine #1 - scripture

Since September I've been dropping in at Belfast Bible College once a week, invading a degree course module called Framework of Christian Thought. It's been a bit mind-blowing so far: a rapid fire journey through the histories and philosophies which modern churches hold dear/are founded on/denounce each other over (delete as appropriate.)

Anyway, as part of the study we're required to submit weekly reflections on each topic. Rather than trying to condense down an overall reaction to each week's tutorials, I decided early on to make the personal reflections exactly as described - a personal reaction, where I would reflect primarily on the points which had struck me the most, on a heavily personal level. I was a little concerned that I might be off down the wrong path completely - but happily, the tutor marking them has been giving great feedback so far.

To make up for the lack of meaningful blogging of late, I thought it would be interesting to begin dripping these online every few days - I do like a good stir. They're obviously heavily contextual, but I've attempted to include as much linkage as possible to allow the discerning reader/debater/firestarter (delete as appropriate) to get involved. I'm calling the series doctrine, but not in an attempt to bear any relation to the Mark Driscoll tome of the same name (though it might end up counterpointing that one as much as complementing. Certainly, this'll be an awful lot more succinct!)

One further note: the set texts for the course are cited and linked to at the bottom of this article. The Colin Gunton book is a bit dense, but Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister McGrath is a fabulously easy-to-read textbook covering all the major aspects of Christian doctrine. I heavily recommend it to anyone wanting to ever debate anything with me ever again, believer or otherwise.

As will be apparent, these reflections are incredibly short. More space for arguing in the comment section afterwards, I reckon.

---

doctrine #1: scripture

Question: What role does Scripture have in God’s ongoing revelation to the world?

Francis Watson indicates (Gunton, 65) that the primary access to testimony of God is through his revelation in Scripture - and, therefore, that the reading and interpretation of Scripture must be theology's primary task. Whilst this makes a lot of sense, there is also an immediate danger in setting this thinking up as rigid parameters in isolation - namely, that our understanding of God will rely entirely on text. I therefore believe that John Wesley was on to something with his eponymous Quadrilateral (McGrath, 146): that our theology must be sourced on a grouping of Scripture, tradition, reason and personal experience. And though I would hold that Scripture takes a strong primacy, we should not attempt to explore it in a manner divorced from the other three.

In constructing our personal theological hermeneutic (Gunton, 71) it really is important to avoid the traditional OT/NT divide in interpretive structures. I personally hope to angle towards the “new hermeneutic”, attempting to read Scripture through the magnifying glass of Christ, and therefore the idea that the entirety of Scripture is therefore Christocentric. A reassuring implication of this to me is that it offers some relief in the challenge of interpretation. That is to say, if Biblical hermeneutics is concerned with using the light of the clear to interpret the murky, one can now approach the whole of Scripture using the testimony of the Gospels to illuminate God’s ongoing revelation through the canon.

Bibliography
F Watson, ‘The Scope of Hermeneutics’ in C Gunton, (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, (Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 65-80.
A McGrath, Christian Thelogy: An Introduction, fourth ed. (Blackwell 2007) pp. 121-152.