Trinity and Incarnation

Answering Contemporary Academic Challenges to Christ’s Divine Pre-existence

Earlier post – “Cosmos to Cradle: From Pre-existent to Incarnate Christ.”

I. Contemporary Challenges to Christ’s Pre-existence
Several prominent scholars have recently challenged the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s divine pre-existence. This article provides a response to their challenge from the standpoint of historic Christian orthodoxy.

A. John Hick’s Mythological Interpretation
John Hick contends that the doctrine of the Incarnation is not a literal truth but a mythological construct developed by the early Church. In The Myth of God Incarnate, he writes:

I suggest that…the idea of divine incarnation is a mythological idea. And I am using the term ‘myth’ in the following sense: a myth is a story which is told but which is not literally true, or an idea or image which is applied to someone or something but which does not literally apply, but which invites a particular attitude in its hearers. Thus the truth of a myth is a kind of practical truth consisting in the appropriateness of the attitude to its object. That Jesus was God the Son incarnate is not literally true, since it has no literal meaning, but it is an application to Jesus of a mythical concept whose function is analogous to that of the notion of divine sonship ascribed in the ancient world to a king…it offers a way of declaring his significance to the world; and it expresses a disciple’s commitment to Jesus as his personal Lord. He is the one in following whom we have found ourselves in God’s presence and have found God’s meaning for our lives. He is our sufficient model of true humanity in a perfect relationship to God.¹

For Hick, Jesus is not ontologically divine but is a uniquely God-conscious human being whose life invites existential commitment. The Incarnation, in this view, is a symbolic affirmation of Jesus’ exemplary humanity, not a metaphysical reality.

B. Bart Ehrman’s Developmental Theory
Bart Ehrman argues that belief in Jesus’ divinity and pre-existence was not held by His earliest followers but emerged gradually over time. In How Jesus Became God, he writes: Continue reading “Answering Contemporary Academic Challenges to Christ’s Divine Pre-existence”

1
The Myth of God Incarnate (SCM, 1977), pp. 178-179.

The Covenant of Redemption Does Not Entail Social Trinitarianism or Tritheism

In my previous post, Salvation is Grounded in the Trinitarian Covenant of Redemption, I described how the plan of salvation which began with the “Father’s will” was then accepted for completion by the Son and fulfilled by the operation of the Holy Spirit raises a challenging question.¹ “Given that any covenant is premised on a plurality of participants, doesn’t the theology of Covenant of Redemption” lead to the questionable doctrine of social trinitarianism or worse, the heresy of tritheism?” Continue reading “The Covenant of Redemption Does Not Entail Social Trinitarianism or Tritheism”

1
It should be noted the sequence is logical rather than temporal.

Salvation is Grounded in the Trinitarian Covenant of Redemption

Christianity teaches a unique salvation where God takes the initiative in saving humankind from the plight of sin. God “chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Christ” (Ephesians 1: 4-5, 10). Continue reading “Salvation is Grounded in the Trinitarian Covenant of Redemption”

How Does A Triune God Have Mercy Since No One Within The Triune Godhead Needs Mercy?

I received this question in the mail last week.
QUESTION
Some Christian apologists question how Allah could be a God of love if he is absolute oneness or monadic. Who could he love before creation? In contrast, the Christian God is triune. Thus, the persons in the Trinity can love one another. This led me to reflect on another attribute of God, that is, his mercy. How does our triune God have mercy since no one within the triune Godhead needs mercy?

MY ANSWER
To your question whether the triune God had MERCY before creation – the answer is YES. God’s mercy is manifested in the Triune Covenant of Redemption.

First let me affirm your initial proposition that love is found in the triune God. Augustine, the great Christian philosopher in 5C AD shares an amazing insight which helps us grasp fully what the bible means in declaring that God is love (1 John 4:16). He explains how love is a trinity. Continue reading “How Does A Triune God Have Mercy Since No One Within The Triune Godhead Needs Mercy?”

Is the Trinity Monotheism? Dr. Ali Ataie vs. Dr. Joshua Sijuwade. A Debate hosted by Blogging Theology

Debate: Is the Trinity Monotheism?

Joshua Sijuwade’s philosophical model of the Trinity is sophisticated and impressive. His analytical model of the Trinity is logically coherent, but as any logician or mathematician knows, one can always construct a consistent philosophical (or mathematical) system based on a chosen set of definitions, assumptions or axioms (so long as it does not claim completeness). More importantly, theoretical models, however sophisticated or coherent, must be grounded in historical reality and divine revelation. In this regard, viewers of the debate need to be convinced that Sijuwade’s splendid system of philosophical trinitarianism is consistent with biblical revelation and the Trinitarian doctrine which was framed in the Nicene Creed (AD 325, 381).

Ali Ataie suggests that the chart or Trinitarian scheme presented by Sijuwade is a form of Sabellianism. He also refers to Origen to suggest that Sijuwade’s monarchical model is not exactly (classical) Trinitarian since his model implies that only the Father has aseity, but not the Son or the Holy Spirit. Even then the Father’s aseity is not intrinsic (which is evidence that Ali does not fully understand the meaning of such a fundamental concept as aseity). Ali even argues that the Father cannot be fundamental since his identity as Father is dependent on another person outside of himself. Continue reading “Is the Trinity Monotheism? Dr. Ali Ataie vs. Dr. Joshua Sijuwade. A Debate hosted by Blogging Theology”

The Creedal Imperative and Trinitarian Confession of Christian Faith and Theology

Kairos Podcast 6: Early Trinitarianism from NT to Nicaea. Part 6/6

LINK: The Creedal Imperative and Trinitarian Confession of Christian Faith and Theology

Recapitulation – how the doctrine of Trinity unfolded as the early church countered heresies.

Tertullian defined the Trinity as three persons in one essence, thus highlighting the foundational biblical teaching on the oneness of God and the three distinct yet equal persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Council of Nicaea, with Athanasius, applied the term “essence” (ousia) to the person of Christ. Christ is of the same essence (homoousios) with the Father. Yet Christ also exists as a separate person, distinct in his own identity as Christ the Son. In short, biblical-Nicene trinitarianism succinctly insists that Christ is truly God and anyone who teaches otherwise is teaching heresy.

The Creedal Imperative – Biblicism insists that one only needs the bible to formulate Christian belief by relying on rigid proof-texting of selective bible verses at the expense of context and other biblical teachings. In contrast, the historic church affirms that creeds (like the Nicene Creed) are essential as they assist the church in understanding Scripture, provide succinct and normative summary of the foundations of the Christian faith (rule of faith) and protect believers from false doctrines.

You may view the video at
The Creedal Imperative and Trinitarian Confession of Christian Faith and Theology

Nicene Trinitarian Theology: True God from True God; Of One Substance (Homoousios) with the Father

Nicene Trinitarian Theology: True God from True God; Of One Substance (Homoousios) with the Father

Kairos Podcast 6: Biblical-Nicene Trinitarianism vs Early Heresies. Part 5/6

Theology of the Nicene Creed (325 AD)
Note how the four clauses of the Nicene Creed specifically rebut Arianism.

1. TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD – He is also ‘true God’, i.e. not God in a secondary degree.

2. THAT IS, FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER added to give a more precise interpretation to BEGOTTEN FROM THE FATHER – “What we have here is a deliberately formulated counterblast to the principal tenet of Arianism, that the Son had been created out of nothing and had a beginning.”

3. BEGOTTEN NOT MADE – “The Arians were “eager enough to employ such language as BEGOTTEN, but the meaning they put upon it was indistinguishable from MADE… [The Nicene Creed affirms that] The Godhead had never been without His Word or His Wisdom: so the Father had never been other than the Father, and had never been without His Son. The Son and the Father must therefore have coexisted from all eternity, the Father eternally begetting the Son.” (ECD 237-238).

4. OF ONE SUBSTANCE WITH THE FATHER – “This asserts the full deity of the Son. “The Son, it implied, shared the very being or essence of the Father. He was therefore fully divine. Whatever belonged to or characterized the Godhead belonged to and characterized Him.” (ECD 238)

To ensure total condemnation of Arian theology, the anathemas were added to condemn phrases typically used in Arian catchwords or slogans. Continue reading “Nicene Trinitarian Theology: True God from True God; Of One Substance (Homoousios) with the Father”

The Arian Heresy and the Council of Nicaea (AD 325)

Kairos Podcast 6: Biblical-Nicene Trinitarianism vs Early Heresies. Part 4/6
Video Link – The Arian Heresy and the Council of Nicaea (AD 325)

Essence of Arianism: God the Father is absolutely unique and transcendent. Since the being or essence (ousia) of the Godhead is unique, transcendent and indivisible it cannot be shared or communicated. Therefore, whatever else exists must have come into existence by an act of God’s creation.

Deductions: 1) The Son must be a creature, 2) As a creature the Son must have a beginning, 3) The Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct knowledge of His Father, 4) The Son must be liable to change and even sin.

Conclusion: The Son of God was not eternal, was not always with God, but was made by the Father before all time. Key phrase of Arianism: “there was [a time] when he was not.”

For Arianism, the Son of God is of similar substance/essence (homoiousios) with the Father.

Refutation by the Nicene Creed (325 AD): the Son of God is of the same substance/essence (homoousios) with the Father – “We believe…the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.”

Logos Christology vs Modalistic Monarchianism; Tertullian Trinity, Origen Eternal Generation of Son

Kairos Podcast 6: Biblical-Nicene Trinitarianism vs Early Heresies. Part 3/6

Video Link – Logos Christology vs Modalistic Monarchianism; Tertullian Trinity, Origen Eternal Generation of Son

Problem facing the early church in the 2nd century: How to maintain the unity of God while insisting on the deity of the one who was distinct from God the Father.
Answer by Logos theologians: Christ as the pre-existing Logos, was the Father’s thought and mind, and that as manifested in creation and revelation, He was its extrapolation or expression.”

Logos Christology was rejected by Modalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism) which claimed that God is a monad (a monarchy above everything) which expresses itself in three operations. “Father, Son and Spirit are only different designations of the same revelation. The one God is known as a Trinity because of his three modes of action.

Modalistic Monarchianism was decisively refuted by Tertullian who utilised the systematic theory of the economy of salvation, with emphasis on the gradation and forms of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Tertullian was the first theologian to use the word “trinitas” and the formula, “one substance in three persons.”

Origen formulated the idea of the “eternal generation of the Son.”

Video Link – Logos Christology vs Modalistic Monarchianism; Tertullian Trinity, Origen Eternal Generation of Son

Early Heresies – Ebionism, Gnosticism and Adoptionism (Dynamic Monarchianism)

Kairos Podcast 6: Early Heresies Part 2/6

Video Link – Ebionism, Gnosticism and Adoptionism (Dynamic Monarchianism)

One paramount issue facing the early church was how to harmonize belief in the deity of the Son of God with monotheism. The early church had to clarify the relationship between Jesus and the one God of the Old Testament.

Prominent heretical sects which offered one-sided solutions include 1) Gnosticism and Docetism which deny the humanity of Christ and 2) Ebionism and Adoptionism (Dynamic Monarchism) which denied the deity of Christ.

The early church countered these heresies with the Rule of Faith which affirmed that belief in 1) the one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and 2) the life, death, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ to be non-negotiable. The affirmation was called the Rule of Faith. Because the Rule of Faith was so universal and consistent, the early “Church Fathers” could use it against heresies. The Rule of Faith eventually took the form of the Apostles’ Creed.

Video Link – Ebionism, Gnosticism and Adoptionism (Dynamic Monarchianism)

Doctrine of Trinity: A Primer