Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here.
In previous posts, we’ve seen the views of James Attebury and Bruce Charlton on the Trinity. I wrote those posts a while in advance of publication. Since I wrote them, Attebury posted a new article—”A Response to David K. Bernard – Part 13: The Trinity in John“—that juxtaposes the two positions (emphasis added):
I think the best thing that a Oneness Pentecostal could do is to carefully read through the entire Gospel of John in one sitting and pay attention to John’s language about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
This is extremely ironic. Why? Because Bruce Charlton has famously studied the fourth Gospel, almost to the complete exclusion of the rest of the Bible. In fact he wrote this mini-book on the topic. If there is anyone out there who would be convinced by carefully reading through the entire Gospel, it should be Charlton.
But Charlton didn’t come to the same conclusion that Attebury did. And, for that matter, neither did I. I’ve read all of these citations (note: links are added)…
John’ Gospel teaches that the Son existed before his incarnation:
John 1:1, 2, 3, 10, 14, 15, 30
John 3:13, 17, 31
John 6:37, 38, 39, 46, 51, 62
John 8:23, 38, 42, 58
John 12:41, 46
John 13:3
John 16:27, 28
John 17:5, 18, 24
1 John 1:1, 2
1 John 4:9
And John distinguishes between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:
John 1:1, 2, 3, 14, 18, 32
John 3:16, 17, 34, 35
John 4:34
John 5:17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 45
John 6:27, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 57, 65
John 7:16, 18, 28, 29, 33
John 8:16, 17, 18, 28, 29, 38, 42, 50, 54
John 10:17, 18, 29, 36
John 11:41, 42
John 12:28, 44, 49, 50
John 13:1, 3, 32
John 14:1, 6, 10, 12, 16, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31
John 15:1, 9, 10, 15, 24, 26
John 16:3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 27, 28, 32
John 17:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26
John 20:17, 21, 31
1 John 1:1, 2, 3
1 John 2:1
1 John 4:9, 10, 14, 15
1 John 5:9, 10
2 John 1:3
…and also come to a different conclusion than Attebury has. So has Kermit Zarley and Sir Anthony Buzzard. I’ll remind my readers, once again, of what Roman Catholic John C. Wright has stated:
It’s a simple observation that the writer of the fourth Gospel would not recognize the incarnation or the Trinity. Without first having the doctrines of the incarnation and Trinity in mind prior to reading the fourth gospel, no reader would come up with either of those doctrines organically. It’s simply not something one could arrive at on the basis of natural reason alone.
This should be immediately obvious to readers, as there are so many different groups who respect the Bible, but understand the meaning of the Bible passages differently, for example in how they disagree on what John 1 means. If explaining the Prologue were so simple, people wouldn’t have such massive disagreements on what “the Word was God” means. The fact is, it is not clear and that’s why there are so many conflicting explanations.
The consequence—of being unable to rely on reason—is that without the traditional authority of Roman Catholicism (starting in the late 4th century), there would likely be no doctrine of the Trinity as we know it today. Attebury, a Protestant, mostly—but not entirely—owes his belief to the same Roman Catholicism he rejects. But instead of rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, he embraces it. If you’re not going to hold your beliefs in a holistically logical way, what’s the point of trying to prove the Trinity with reason? You’ve already demonstrated that you require blind faith, so what makes the Trinity any different?
Attebury—like James White and all the others who attempt to use reason to prove the doctrine of the Trinity—is deluding himself.
I could spend a few weeks going verse-by-verse showing why these verses do not, in fact, show what Attebury is claiming they show. But, unless I get some kind of meaningful engagement (which is highly unlikely as he censors contrary opinions from his site), I don’t think I will bother. His viewpoint—that a rational explanation of the Trinity exists—represents a tiny, fringe minority view. It’s probably even heretical.
It seems nearly impossible that after more than 16 centuries of various men trying and failing that Attebury has finally found a rational explanation for the Trinity. James White couldn’t do it, and he’s perhaps the foremost expert still living!
People can, and do, provide proofs that 2+2=5, but in every single instance their argument is invalid. No matter how hard they try, no matter how many centuries they do it for, 2+2 will always equal 4. Contrary to Attebury’s suggestion, no amount of reading or rereading can change what is plain to read. He can spend the rest of his life trying to make 2+2=5, but he’ll never succeed. Proving the Trinity is logically impossible. But believing you can prove it is not.
Consider, for example, consider Cyril’s position on the body and blood of Christ:
Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said,
They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.
In the Old Testament also there was show-bread; but this, as it belonged to the Old Testament, has come to an end; but in the New Testament there is Bread of heaven, and a Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread corresponds to our body, so is the Word appropriate to our soul.
Citation: Cyril of Jerusalem. “Catechetical Lecture 22.” ¶3-4 (350)
The Roman Catholic reads John 6:53 and says to himself “Jesus meant that we were supposed to eat his literal flesh” even though verse in the full context of that passage says the exact opposite (as Cyril explains). So convinced are they, that they will believe the exact opposite of reality. But doing so will always be wrong. Always. Forever and always.
If Attebury believes that I will read the Gospel of John and naturally arrive at precisely the wrong conclusion simply by rereading, he’s going to remain disappointed. He’s the one who needs to reread John, though I don’t suppose he’ll stop reading his own theology back into the text.
Search the 2 godheads in heaven lecture on YT by the late Dr Michael Heiser a biblical scholar. The trinity exists in the OT.
Junia,
“Search the 2 godheads in heaven lecture on YT by the late Dr Michael Heiser a biblical scholar.”
Thank you, but I’ve already done that. I’ll be discussing Heiser’s viewpoints in Part 9 next week. In the meantime, you might want to consider reading my articles on Heiser.
Since you’ve cited Heiser authoritatively, this means you are fine with working outside of the bounds of traditional Christianity (and thus comfortable dipping into heretical waters). I wonder, why do you embrace traditional Trinitarian theology when you cite someone who is a heretic to tradition? What is it about the Trinity that leads you to such devotion towards it?
This is all especially relevant, because Heiser taught that the doctrine of the Trinity—while he believed it to be true—was not essential to salvation.
The trinity exists in the OT.”
Not deductively, it doesn’t.
It’s an inductive inference, the conclusion of which is only drawn because people have already concluded that it must be there. That determination is what makes the conclusion that “the trinity exists in the OT” circular reasoning, rather than just a speculative inference.
Take the time to ponder why that is.
Peace,
DR
Agree with this.
And I would add that the difficulty is not reading “John” but reading on the basis that this was all we knew of Jesus, of temporarily ignoring the Synoptic gospels, epistles etc and seeing what the 4th gospel says on the basis that it (or, the first 20 chapters – 21 being added decades later by a different hand) is what it claims to be.
I needed also to understand why the Trinity doctrine arose when it did – what function did it serve in that time and place, and why it became a core dogma. Of course this can only be a theory. But I think there ate simple reasons, that seemed compelling at the time – mainly an absolute prior commitment to monotheism, plus the need to affirm Jeus as fully divine.
(For me, Jesus became fully divine, therefore there is more than one God – monotheism is false, although God is indeed the prime creator. Creation operated on already existing beings.)
…but reading on the basis that this was all we knew of Jesus…
I realized this problem back in 2016, when I performed this experiment similar to yours. Whereas you limited yourself to the fourth gospel, I limited myself only to those ~7 events which are shared by all four gospels. The idea was that I wanted to know what all four men collectively thought were the most important facets of Jesus’ life, as if that were all we knew of Jesus.
At the time I made this observation:
That Jesus was the Christ (or Messiah) is the essential point. This is troubling to the doctrine of the Trinity that relies on complex theologies about pre-existence and why the Son is God. Proponents of this theology insist that this is essential for salvation, yet another point Jesus himself never taught.
For something supposedly so essential, why didn’t the gospel writers find it as important as the Baptism of Jesus, the Feeding of the 5000, Peter’s Confession, and the events of the final week of Jesus’ life from the Anointing to the Resurrection?
It’s a curious omission.
Only much later did I realize how much many “traditional” Christians only pay lip service to the Trinity. An actual majority of professing Christians can’t describe the Trinity in non-heretical terms. This is rather astonishing, when you think about it. And many of the influential persons within Christianity do not hold traditional views on the Trinity.
I believe the Trinity is, in actual practice, a true minority viewpoint.
“I needed also to understand why the Trinity doctrine arose when it did”
One day in the future I hope to finish writing about the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the first four centuries. It will answer this question from the historical perspective. I’ll cover the Didache, 1 Clement, Ebionites and Nazarenes, Pliny the Younger, Ignatius, Papias, Aristides, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp, 2 Clement, Justin Martyr, and maybe a few dozen more. I expect it to be a very long series, and consequently will take me a long time to complete.
“For me, Jesus became fully divine, therefore there is more than one God – monotheism is false, although God is indeed the prime creator. Creation operated on already existing beings.”
I also tend to believe this is the most probable, straightforward answer, but I’m not willing to be dogmatic about it. My belief is simply that since the Bible does not say explicitly, so also will I not believe one way or the other explicitly.
I think the difference between us may be that I regard All scriptures, even the Fourth Gospel! – as ultimately means to an end. You *seem* to work from the Bible as if it is (properly understood) the bottom line, and highest authority.
(And I have also learned from some of the Mormon scriptures, and theology – indeed some of these are very important to me.)
It seems “obvious” to me that God and Jesus Christ would not set-up their creation such that a particular book, that requires to be read in a particular way, would be necessary for what they wanted to achieve for Men…
Any more than they would set-up the world such that people would require priests as intermediaries, or a particular church to be accessible to provide particular sacraments, teachings, etc.
Ultimately, what Jesus was about must be as contingency-proof as possible. Good scriptures, teachings, traditions, theology etc will be helpful, but I cannot see that God would make any of these essential .
He would surely want to provide the needful opportunities for salvation (and whatever else he intended) with only those things that he could guarantee to every Man.
So I approach the Bible in this spirit. I find the Fourth Gospel, over a period of many years, to be that which most consistently and deeply provides a sense of inner assurance of validity – far beyond any other scripture. But even within the Fourth Gospel, there are parts that seem (over several readings, over some years) more or less clearly wrong, alien, inauthentic.
Therefore, I am evaluating the Bible, even as I learn from it. I regard it as I would regard the teachers in a university – some much better than others (some stupid, in error, or actively mischievous) – but to none would I give unconditional obedience.
Discernment should never be set aside (except temporarily, deliberately), and that means that in practice I have regard to a higher authority than the Bible.
Which is that I assume the actuality of the divine within me and direct contact with the divine as the ultimate authority – which I interpret as the Holy Ghost (which I interpret as the living ascending Christ).
I must admit that I do not possess the answers to these questions. I’ve always said that I don’t like philosophy, in large part because I’m not intellectually equipped to be a philosopher. I tend towards acknowledging my limitations and admitting that I do not know how to resolve these difficulties. You are obviously much more capable when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics. I tend to prioritize logic and theology, for better or worse.
In general, I hold to the Bible (if properly understood) to be the highest authority as an axiomatic principle. But if you were to question me in depth to get my “real” answer, I would admit to this:
I assume the actuality of the divine within me and direct contact with the divine as the ultimate authority – which I interpret as the Holy Ghost (which I interpret as the living ascending Christ).
It is for this reason that I used to call myself a Christian mystic. After all, I’m an Anabaptist—of Mennonite and related stock in Lancaster County’s Amish Country—and the Anabaptists were influenced by the German mystics. The problem, as I discovered, is that the mysticism of the divine actuality within a Christian (by way of the Holy Spirit) is nothing like what is typically meant by mysticism in the East and in the West. If find the term “mysticism” to be misleading and unsatisfactory.
(I have a post in my drafts folder explaining this, but I have not been able to finish it.)
I hold strongly to the validity of discernment, however, I firmly believe that discernment cannot contradict with the Word of God found in scripture. The Bible forms the framework by which all mystical experience must conform. The Bible itself requires it, but beyond that fact, it is the only way to keep mysticism from being subjective (and ultimately irrational contradiction).
Perhaps you could say that I find the Bible to be limited, but absolute within those limits. As I wrote here, I strongly disagree with the notion that the Bible is a dead book.
Having read your blog for about a decade, I do well understand that your views diverge on that point. But I’ve always appreciated your perspective.
I’m not sure how much we actually disagree in practice. I genuinely think we may be approaching the same thing from two different angles.
That said, my biggest (and possibly sole) objection to your stance is that it leads to relativism, and I don’t know how you can get around that.