Trinitarianism:
Looking At its Theological Implications
Bobby A. Grow, M.A.
January 2006
I.
What Does It Mean to be a Trinitarian
This is one of the so called hallmark
or “touchstone doctrines” that serves to define and shape historic
evangelical orthodoxy. Trinitarianism denotes the concept of the tri-unity of
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In other words, there is God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each being co-equal and co-eternal one
with another. In fact the very person of God is defined and expressed by the
inter-relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—thus we have the
God-head.
In all reality, though, do we
Evangelicals really know how to engage the idea of trinity, above, in day to day
life? What implications, for theology proper, soteriology, ethics, etc. can be
drawn from this? Given the imago dei, what implications does the trinitarian
reality provide for articulating a biblical anthropology?
Typically, in theology, we emphasize
God’s oneness—and we think of Him in terms of Aristotle’s un-moved mover
who “deals” with man in a rather cold contractual way. Note Thomas
Aquinas’ synthesized view of God through the Aristotelian lens, he says:
“The most widespread of all effects
is existence itself; so it must be the effect proper to the first and most
wide-ranging of causes, namely God. In other words, creation is an action
peculiar to God himself.” (Quote taken from: St Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologiae A Concise Translation, ed. Timothy McDermott (Westminster: Christian
Classics, 1989), 86.
This view of God, which is widely and
uncritically accepted by many Christians, also has implications, albeit negative
ones, from my perspective. When we emphasize God, using “Thomistic”
categories, our view of man (anthropology) is distorted. We end up viewing men
through individualistic glasses, i.e. each man is an “island unto himself”.
Instead of viewing people as fellow human beings, they are seen as commodities
and “resources” with whom we make contracts. I.e. If you do this for me,
then I’ll do that for you . . . “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch
yours.” This is a sad implication of our typical understanding of God.
Maybe if we realized that people are
“persons” and not “individuals”; and that our personhood is defined by
our inter-relationship one with another (so the trinitarian understanding of God
implies) we would begin walking with a much more powerful biblical perspective
in life.
II.
Being Trinitarian: Applied to Biblical Interpretation
In this section I want to think
out-loud about what being genuinely trinitarian in perspective implies about how
we approach scripture and hermeneutics.
Given the premise above, “that the
God-head is defined by their inter-relationship one with another, finding
communion in their union with each other;” it should follow that if indeed the
scriptures are truly “God-breathed” (cf. II Tim. 3:16), there will be an
organic “union” intra-textually between the various “books” of
scripture. In other words it should not surprise us to find intra-textual links
between disparate books of the Bible. These links can be literary, theological
motifs, themes that take shape by their redundant usage throughout scripture.
For example, when we see Babylon, in
the Bible what does this name conjure up in your mind? Starting in Genesis
10—11 (Shinar, Babylon, Babel) we are first introduced to Nimrod and Babylon
as a place that is anti-thetical to the purposes of God. This understanding
carries through in the exilic period with Israel, as a place of captivity; and
even through to Revelation 17—18 we again see Babylon as the city (empire)
warring against God (remembering that He is still sovereignly using Babylon to
accomplish His purposes). Or how about the “servant of God motif”; do we see
any intra-textual understanding created between Job and Moses, both of whom are
called servant’s of God—and both pointing to the “suffering servant of
God” in Isaiah 53.
Kevin Van Hoozer and John Sailhamer
both highlight an approach related to the one I am speaking of here (in much
more detail too), but they don’t explicitly speak of the “Trinity” as
providing the underlying hermeneutical framework for how we should approach our
interpretation of scripture. In fact, what I am discussing is probably more
theologically driven versus their approach which is dealing much more with
methodology and application of the unity found in the scriptures.
Within the trinitarian understanding
there is space created for distinction (i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit);
while at the same time finding complete unity as the parts (distinction)
interact and form the unity of the God-head. Likewise scripture has distinction
in its many parts (various books of the Bible); while at the same time as the
parts interact they find shape (meaning) in their intra-textual unity.
Conclusion
Our God is an Awesome God who’s
complexity, demonstrated in the reality of the trinity, should foster in each
believer a sense of worship and awe. As discussed above, being a trinitarian has
practical implications when related to how we relate to each other; and even how
we engage the text of scripture. While the concept of trinity has transcendent
value that should cause us to worship and praise our great God; this same
concept also has immanent implications that should have impact on the way we
live our daily lives—as we engage each other, as people, and even when we
interact with the text of scripture.
Hopefully this short article has
provoked thought in your own heart and mind as to what it means to be a
Trinitarian!
|
