Comments on: How We Got Here: The Evangelical Trinitarian Milieu

By: Lamar Carnes

Lamar Carnes — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:38:43 +0000

It is rather sad and discouraging to learn that our present day ministers/teachers etc., have neglected such a valuable and important doctrine of the word of God. Neglect of study relating to our past generation giants of the faith and their writings on this subject is one of the problems. There seems to be always a difficulty within each generation to "study" history of any kind and so they have to rediscover things like they are "brand new" and never existed thus wasting precious time and moments which could have been directed to more important aspects of the faith. We don't need to re-invent the wheel on everything that is going on in the body of Christ. Much should not be "thrown out" which was found to be profitable in the kingdom, but yet, because it was and/or is old stuff, the younger generation thinks it isn't relevant. How wrong can you be? Not all that is "old" is irrelevant. In fact, it may be very wise to listen and follow "old" things which have been proven to be of value in the past. In fact, isn't the Holy Bible an "old" writing and book? Sure, but it is always fresh and new to us every day isn't it? Let us not show disdain for small things or old things just based on those terms!!

By: Eduardo

Eduardo — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:04:50 +0000

I agree that every doctrine that we assume, will be lost in the second or third generation, whether is the trinity, justification by faith alone, the doctrines of grace, etc.

By: Tony P.

Tony P. — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:36:00 +0000

It should be noted that the hymnwriters you mentioned were actually pastors and theologians. Perhaps more pastors and theologians need to be poets.

By: Tony P.

Tony P. — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:33:15 +0000

RD, I think part of the problem in what you are claiming is with respect to the NT quotes of and allusion to the OT. Peter's sermon in Acts 2, and Phil 2 are a couple that come immediately to mind. Peter says, "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." The Christ hymn in Phil 2 has Isaiah 45 as its background. Both of these passages in their OT contexts direct the bowing to, confessing of, and calling upon toward Yahweh. In the NT, these passages that were speaking of the God of Israel are now applied to Jesus. It seems that part of the message of the NT is that Jesus is Yahweh, who is a triune being.

By: RD

RD — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:50:54 +0000

Darren, Thanks for the reply. The orthodox view of the trinity is, as you noted in your comment, that Jesus was fully human but also fully God. The last part of that statement is what can be called into question if you openly read the scriptures. The OT speaks prophetically of the coming messiah of Israel. We are familiar with so many of these verses that we don't really consider them carefully. Verses that speak about the suffering servant who will bear our iniquity, etc etc. In each instance this messiah is NEVER described as actually being God. In fact, the designation of "messiah" is the exact same language used to describe King Cyrus of Persia. He was God's anointed "messiah" entrusted to deliver the exiled Hebrews. In the book of Acts, the disciples use this exact language when they are presenting Jesus. I've never seen an instance in Acts where Jesus is proclaimed to be divine (the Son of God); instead, he's proclaimed to be God's anointed servant through whom God worked miracles and wonders and whom God raised from the dead to be the messiah.

By: Flotsam and jetsam (2/10) | Everyday Theology

Flotsam and jetsam (2/10) | Everyday Theology — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:36:18 +0000

[...] How We Got Here: The Evangelical Trinitarian Milieu: Evangelicals have a peculiar relationship with the doctrine of the Trinity. Defined nearly as much by the way they hold their values and beliefs as the beliefs themselves, evangelicals value the Bible as God’s distinct self-revelation. They are people of the Book, and therefore, if it’s evangelical, it is usually going to be biblical. And yet, the formulation of the creedal doctrine of the Trinity that came down from Nicaea isn’t stated in the Bible. [...]

By: Darren

Darren — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:52:45 +0000

Hey RD, your observation doesn't actually throw uncertainty on an orthodox understanding of the Trinity, but actually fills it out. The Son is appointed by the Father, a distinction exactly affirmed by Trinitarian doctrine. The Son becomes flesh, fully God, fully man. As the "last man"/"second Adam" (cf. Rom 5:12f; 1Cor 15), he is the Messiah, and fulfills the requirements of the law. No contradiction in the Scriptural texts. Just paradox.

By: Fernando

Fernando — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:00:09 +0000

No one claims that the liturgy is enough! Nor am I saying anything so preposterous as the claim that only liturgical churches are trinitarian. The point is not the liturgy per se; it's the place of the Trinity in our worship. It's perfectly possible, I think, to have a more "contemporary" style of worship that every Subday reminds believers that their God is named Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But I've never seen one. The fixed liturgy at least puts the words there, a foundation on which to build.

By: RD

RD — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:42:09 +0000

A careful reading of scripture shows that there really isn't biblical concensus concerning the trinity or the divinity of Jesus. Certainly, certain biblical passages DO offer that understanding, but there are many other passages that very definitely express Jesus' relationship to God as being an appointed special servant (the Jewish Messiah). This understanding is very different from the understanding that Jesus and God were one and the same.

By: SirBrass

SirBrass — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:51:07 +0000

The problem with liturgy is often for the common man, the only thing religious they ever learn is what is said in the liturgy. Simply mentioning the trinity in liturgical prayers is all well and good, but often that's as far as it goes.

To be truly confessional, the confessions have to be held to, taught, and defended not just by the so-called clergy, but taught to the so-called laity as well (I would argue that to say there's a distinction is distinctly unbiblical. out of the congregation are trained men who are called to be deacons and elders, and no other office, and we are all a priesthood of believers). Not just recited daily.

I was raised episcopalian and could recite the nicean creed word for word. Yet, that great creed was just words to me. It was something I knew we were supposed to believe, but all I knew was the creed, not what it really meant. It wasn't until I was in a non-liturgical church (and in the interim was saved, btw) that I truly began learning from the church about the creeds and confessions.

Liturgy is nice, but it is often a thin veneer over a whole host of vast ignorance.