Trinity, Incarnation, and salvation

[darinhouston]

One more good one...

https://snemes2.substack.com/p/trinity- ... -salvation

Trinity, Incarnation, and salvation

Some persons are convinced that persons who do not accept the catholic doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation are not actually Christians and thus are not saved. Of course, this is hardly a new opinion in the history of Christianity. The Quicunque Vult (or so-called “Athanasian Creed”) asserted this point of view around fifteen hundred years ago. This document says that whoever wants to be saved must hold to “the catholic faith” before all else, and it proceeds to define this “catholic faith” in terms of the Nicene-Chalcedonian doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation. It ends with these ominous words: “This is the catholic faith, which unless a person will have believed it faithfully and firmly, it will not be possible for him to be saved.”

Is there any reason to accept this point of view? I do not think so. Quite to the contrary, I think the “Athanasian Creed” could (perhaps a bit uncharitably) be described as a terroristic document. It threatens people with damnation unless they are willingly to believe “faithfully and firmly” such incomprehensible sentences as this: “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” Theologians who have studied these issues in detail know that it is far from obvious that sentences like these make any sense. Karl Rahner, for example, wrote that the doctrine of the Trinity is an absolute mystery that we do not understand even after it has been revealed (The Trinity, p. 50). But what else should one call it, then, when people are threatened with hellfire for their inability or unwillingness to believe things that even the most renowned theologians of the past century cannot agree about or make sense of?

I think that the picture of salvation presented in the Bible is rather different. I will give one example that I think is uniquely illustrative, namely the story of Jesus and Zacchaeus from the Gospel of Luke 19:1–10. Jesus is passing through Jericho when a very rich tax collector Zacchaeus hears about it. He goes to see Jesus, but because the crowd is so great and he is so short of stature, he climbs up a tree in order to be able to see the Lord better. Jesus calls him down and tells him that he has to stay at Zacchaeus’s house for the day. Zacchaeus hurries down and is happy to welcome Jesus into his house. The people gathered around start to grumble at the fact that Jesus is going into the house of a notorious sinner like Zacchaeus. But Zacchaeus himself tells Jesus that he will give half of his possessions to the poor and repay fourfold anyone he has defrauded. In response to Zacchaeus’s words, Jesus says: “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost” (v. 10).

What does this passage teach us about salvation? It seems to me that the image is a very simple and clear one. Salvation is a condition of the heart. Salvation “enters into the house of Zacchaeus” when, in response to Jesus’s preaching about God the Father and his kingdom, he determines to live in righteousness and peace with God and with others. He no longer thinks of others as persons whom he can abuse and defraud for his own personal gain, but rather sees his riches as gifts of God by which he can help those who are less fortunate. In a word, Zacchaeus’s salvation consists in his entering into a condition of lived harmony with God, with others, and with himself through Jesus’s teaching. It is a change in his life and way of experiencing himself and everything else; he is put back “in tune” with the world that God wants to create.

If this is what salvation is, then it seems to me clear that belief in the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation has nothing to do with any of this. A man can come to love God his Father and live as his child in the world without believing that the divine ουσία subsists in three ὑποστάσεις distinguished only by their personal relations of origin or believing that Jesus is one πρόσωπον in two φύσεις. Certainly Jesus never preached any such things, and yet salvation came to the house of Zacchaeus all the same. Holding such opinions is thus entirely irrelevant to the lived experience of salvation, which consists in the fact of coming to love God and others as is appropriate for a person who understands him- or herself to be God’s child.

The doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation are theoretical constructions intended to make sense of certain things the New Testament says about Jesus and his relation to God the Father and the Holy Spirit. They are interpretations of a set of data. People can disagree about these sorts of things. But Jesus’s preaching is like a medicine which produces salvation in us when it changes how we think and feel about ourselves, about others, and about God. You do not need to know how medicine works in order for it to accomplish its proper effect in you. Scientists can even disagree with each other in their theories about how a particular medicine manages to work—and yet it works all the same, notwithstanding this theoretical disagreement about the mechanism by which it works. The same point can be made with respect to salvation. When Jesus teaches that God is our Father who is more eager to take care of us than we are to take care of our own children (Matt. 7:11), and this message produces in us a love for God and a trust in his goodness and providential care that motivates us to change our way of life, then the medicine has worked and we are healed.

Christians who have doubts about the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation or who do not believe them should not allow themselves to be terrorized by would-be gatekeepers who insist that such doctrines are necessary for salvation. Such persons are rather acting like the Pharisees and scribes whom Jesus criticized for tying up heavy burdens and placing them on the shoulders of others (Matt. 23:4). People who love Christ and who trust in God their Father they threaten with damnation and exclusion from the community for not believing things that many honest professional theologians admit cannot be understood or made sense of. Once again, in my opinion, this is a kind of religious terrorism, even if it is not intentionally so. Jesus never granted to his disciples nor to any who would come afterwards any other authority than that of passing on his own teachings (Matt. 28:18–20), and he never teaches those doctrines in such clear and plain words as would merit insisting upon them so strongly.

Have you come to know that God is your Father who loves you? Do you trust in him with your whole life? Do you see other human beings as your brothers, fellow children of God the Father whom you must love as yourself? Then salvation has entered into your house, irrespective of whether you affirm the consubstantiality of Father and Son or any other such notion. The medicine has worked, regardless of whether you understand how it did so. You do not need to worry about the threats and empty bluster of heresy-hunters. They are like the crowds who complained that Jesus was going into the house of a sinner like Zacchaeus. But Jesus ignored them because he does not judge things as people do. What people despise, he loves. What Jesus wants is the salvation of the lost, which salvation means their reconciliation with God and with their neighbors by a change of their hearts. And if this reconciliation has taken place in you, then you can safely ignore those who demand you believe things that even they do not understand.

I have a PhD in theology, and I studied under some of the most world-renowed theologians alive today. I understand very well what is involved in these disputes from a biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical point of view. I can say for myself that salvation—a new heart, a new life, a new experience of oneself in relation to God and others—is worth more than all the theological knowledge in the world. And I think that anyone will agree who knows what I am talking about and who has experienced that salvation in him- or herself.

Salvation is not something you believe you have because you believe all the right things and check all the right boxes. It is something you know you have because you experience it in yourself, and no one can take that away from you (cf. John 16:22), nor do you need anyone to teach you about something you are experiencing for yourself (cf. 1 John 2:27). The experience speaks for itself, and it seems to me clear that what brings about this experience is being told—not that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal in all things except in the begetting, the being begotten, and the proceeding, nor that the Son is a single ὑπόστασις in two φύσεις rather than being a single φύσις in two unequal modes of existence, but that God is your Father who loves you and takes care of you, and that your neighbor is your brother, equally God’s child whom you are to love as yourself. One could say that salvation means feeling at home in God’s world because you are his child, and the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation have nothing to do with that.

[dizerner]

Here's what I accept:

The Word was God.

He was in the bosom of the Father.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

[darinhouston]

Here's what I accept:

The Word was God.

He was in the bosom of the Father.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Well, the first and third are right out of scripture and thus hard not to accept. We might all interpret those statements differently, however.

I assume you were trying to accept clear teachings of scripture. But,...

the second is a derivation - Your use of "He" seems to refer to the "Word." Not to quibble, but Scripture says that the Son was in the bosom of the Father - it does not say the Word was. We can debate what that means, but it's not entirely clear that the Son "just is" the Word. The Word (whatever we hold that to be) became enfleshed (whatever we hold that to mean) in the man, Jesus, who was the Son of God. The extent to which Jesus "just is" the Word is not established. It is clear that the Word pre-existed in "eternity past" but it is not clear that it was a conscious personal being or that Jesus pre-existed "as the Word."

[dizerner]

Jesus is called the Word of God.

Straight up, flat out, clear as could be!

and arrayed with a mantle sprinkled with blood, and his name hath been called--The Word of God. (Rev. 19:13 ROT)

SAME PERSON:

17 Because, the law, through Moses, was given, favour and truth, through Jesus Christ, came into existence.
18 No one, hath seen, God, at any time: An Only Begotten God, The One existing within the bosom of the Father, He, hath interpreted [him]. (Jn. 1:17-18 ROT)

[darinhouston]

Jesus is called the Word of God.

Straight up, flat out, clear as could be!

and arrayed with a mantle sprinkled with blood, and his name hath been called--The Word of God. (Rev. 19:13 ROT)

SAME PERSON:

17 Because, the law, through Moses, was given, favour and truth, through Jesus Christ, came into existence.
18 No one, hath seen, God, at any time: An Only Begotten God, The One existing within the bosom of the Father, He, hath interpreted [him]. (Jn. 1:17-18 ROT)

I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but it's very different to be "called" The Word of God from "being" the Word of God that pre-existed his incarnation. If the Word was incarnated as Jesus, then it is quite proper to call him the Word - "the Word made flesh" but that doesn't mean he pre-existed "as" the Word.

The John passages (yours is a bad translation) - 17 says that grace and truth came through Jesus (in contrast with the Law which came through Moses) - that's not relevant here. 18 says that Jesus was in the bosom of the Father. I already made that point. We can discuss what "being in the bosom" means in this context but it was not the Word that was said to have been in the bosom of the Father - it was Jesus - this is consistent with what I already said.

[dizerner]

It's not a bad translation, I don't know where you are getting faulty information from.

We can "read in" anything we want to a passage, and this makes interpretation always a slippery slope.

But consider!

There is no indication or description of an identity change, of something becoming a different person, or a different core personality.

The Word "no longer was the Word," or the Word "became a person," or the Word "stopped being the Word," or as modern Trinitarians faultily assume, the Word "added on a nature."

No.

The Word BECAME flesh, it didn't "stop" being the Word, or become "NOT" the Word—this is just being read "into" the text as some like to parrot.

You can say the Word was a banana if you want to, but it definitely is not described there.

[dwight92070]

Of course salvation happens without believing in or even understanding the Trinity or the Incarnation. It did with me. Zaccheus, the thief on the cross, the thousands saved on the Day of Pentecost, the twelve apostles, Paul, etc., are all additional examples. In fact, I don't know of one example of anyone who understood the Trinity and the Incarnation before they were saved. Unfortunately, it takes years for many Christians to come this knowledge. So I too disagree that acceptance of these doctrines, both of which I believe, must be present in order to be saved. However, I'm not the classic trinitarian: I believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct, and in another sense they are the same being.
The author of your article, Darin, said: "Do you see other human beings as your brothers, fellow children of God the Father ...? Then salvation has entered into your house." This directly contradicts Jesus' words that His brother, His sister, His mother, were those who did the will of His Father who is in heaven. Not all human beings are fellow children of God the Father.
The author also said that " ... salvation - a new heart, a new life, ... is worth more than all the theological knowledge in the world." Well, for any one individual, that is correct. Their salvation is worth more to them than all their theological knowledge. But I would guess that thousands, maybe millions have been saved directly and indirectly due to the theological knowledge of relatively few, mature believers, who had a passion to see them saved, and for the truth of His word.
We are commanded to pursue knowledge beyond salvation. John said that he was glad to see believers walking in the truth, which goes way beyond just salvation. A true disciple will continue in His word, know the truth, and allow that truth to set him free. If we abide in Him and His word, we will bear much fruit.

[darinhouston]

I think what the author would say is that the "theology" that is required for salvation is very basic and fundamental and requires very little understanding - just simple assent and belief.

As to the "fellow brothers" note, I tend to agree that was inartful at best but it was a compound series of statements and taken together are close to the heart of a believer - I don't think he meant to imply that you didn't also need to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and died and rose again - but, given that belief, such evidence is more important than further theological understanding of the nature of God and so forth.

[dwight92070]

It's interesting that during the season that we celebrate the Incarnation (and therefore, the preexistence) of Jesus, these arguments are put forward. It reminds me of the "habit" of, I believe it's Time magazine, where every Easter and Christmas, they have their obligatory cover picture of Jesus, and their heretical article to accompany it. At one time I would buy those, until I realized I was being duped into making them more money, just by them putting "Jesus" on the cover. I think they count on Christians or religious people to do just that.

I guess it's a common strategy of the enemy to attack the truths of Christianity during the times of the year when we hold those truths to be so precious. Of course, they are precious year-round but Satan must be jealous of all the attention and worship that his arch-enemy, Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, receives during these holidays. Or perhaps it's those who do not accept His incarnation, His preexistence, and the Trinity who are jealous. Maybe they know that they can't fully participate in the glory, wonder, awe and worship that these truths inspire.

It's one thing to worship Jesus as God who became a man. It's quite another thing to worship Jesus as some elevated man, who is not God, which is the very definition of idolatry. In the former, God so loved the world that He Himself came into it, to save it. In the latter, God "loved" the world "so much", that He sent someone else, who is not God, His delegate, to save it. Never mind the fact that worshiping an elevated man violates the first and second commandments.

Years ago, I attended a church, where the pastor did not accept the Deity of Jesus or the Trinity. I was a new believer, and therefore very naive and accepting of whatever the pastor said. He did not allow hymns where Jesus was worshiped, to be sung. In some hymns, we had to skip certain verses, because if we sang them, we would be worshiping Jesus. At least this pastor was consistent, knowing that if Jesus is not God, then we cannot worship him. Today's non-Trinitarians, however, or at least many of them, are seemingly blind to the fact that if Jesus is not God, then we should not be worshiping him. As I look back at my time at that church, it is obvious that the pastor himself wanted to be in the limelight, not Jesus or even God.

One side note: Whatever happened to Paidion? I haven't heard from him in a long time.

Dwight

[darinhouston]

Thanks for suggesting I'm a tool of the enemy. I post things like this often throughout the year, but at this time I do focus deeply in devotions on who Christ is and what he did when he was born and so forth and I try to distinguish what traditional views are scriptural and which are not and so I probably spend more time reading things in this area from other sources than at other times -- and have time off work and so forth. And I find more awe and beauty in God's revealed truth when I actually think it is His revealed truth and not the truth of the traditions of men.

But, thanks again for suggesting I"m a tool of the enemy. Perhaps God is using me to illuminate the truth and prevent the obscurity of tradition from getting in the way of who he really is and who is son really is. We are all simply seeking truth here.