Normative: The Trinity, The Duality of Christ’s Nature, And the Consequences of Departing from Christian Orthodoxy

God as a triune God, and Jesus known to be fully human and fully divine in nature, are two foundational truths of the Christian faith. Many have sought to redefine these doctrines and find more “sensible” or logical interpretations of scripture with consequences that have been, while unintentional, far reaching and often catastrophic. These departures from the orthodox position concerning how we view God and the person of Jesus Christ have variously resulted in theological systems that have blamed the victim for their undeserved circumstances, encouraged pride in those who have supposedly achieve spiritual perfection, and provided theological and philosophical space for despots to rise and rule as though they were God. Those who have wished to appeal to those beyond the scope of Christian Orthodoxy have attempted to create a more palatable form of the ‘truth.’ They have however created only confusion and have ultimately undermined that which they wished to affirm. Richard Terrell remarked in his book “Resurrecting the Third Reich” that Higher Criticism of the Bible made the scriptures appear to be faulty, historically incorrect, “mythological” and contradictory.¹ Such belief systems assisted the rise of such despots as Adolf Hitler by disenfranchising Christians from belief in their faith.

Denial of the duality of Christ’s nature has resulted in heresies which produce the fruits of cruelty, indifference and self righteousness. In denying His divinity such belief systems as adoptionism arise exhorting its adherents to try harder to achieve salvation. In denying Christ’s humanity Docetic heresies arise which allow flight from the reality of human suffering, and “save” its adherents from the cost of participating in fully in life or love.

Fundamental to the Christian Faith is the concept of the Trinity. This distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. The Greeks and Romans had evolved their pantheons, and their gods behaved in a very human like manner. War’s, petty jealousies, and betrayal were the normal standards of behaviour in the heavens. Where monotheism held sway the one god was a singular entity. Islam, which has adopted the idea that Christ did not die on the Cross, worships only one god who has no need of a son. Neither ancient monotheism, nor polytheism, ever presented such an idea as three persons in one God. C. FitzSimons Allison suggests in The Cruelty of Heresy that the fact that the concept of God being triune does not exists outside of the Christian tradition is evidence of God’s existence. Such a doctrine could not be formulated by the mind of man because it is entirely beyond his experience and comprehension. Chafer also says: In the nature of the uniqueness of the Godhead, there is no illustration or parallel in human experience.²

For some a problem arises when it is realised that the word Trinity appears no where in scripture and the concept is not taught explicitly by the text. How then did Christianity arrive at this belief? Some suggest it arose from the day the Holy Spirit fell upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost as promised by Christ (Acts 1:8), which confirmed what Jesus told them concerning the “Comforter”. The Holy Spirit demonstrated that He too was God. To this idea it should be added that Christ’s exhortation in Matthew 28:10 to baptise in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit gave God a new name. The name of God is that of three persons in one “unity.”³

Christian commentators have remarked that if man could fully understand God and who He is then man would either be equal with God, as who and what He is would fit comfortably within mans intellectual capacity. Chafer says: The nature of God must present mysteries to the finite mind, and the triune mode of existence is perhaps the supreme mystery. M. Coquerel states: “God is the only intelligent Being, for Whom no mystery exists. To be surprised, is to be indignant at not being God.”⁴

One often quoted definition of God is “God is love.” Here then is a problem for those who assert a single person God. If God created the world, and all that is in it, how could this be true of God before creation? If God is indeed love, then he must be able to practice loving, which is, by definition, a verb. If before creation there was only a single person called God, then how could he love? For God to be love it is required that there be an object for his love throughout eternity. This problem is resolved in the Trinity, three persons, one God, co-existent and eternal.

Scripture makes clear there are three personalities within the Godhead. This is true of both the Old and New Testaments. The first seven words of Genesis when read in Hebrew use the word Elohim. Transliterated the sentence reads Bereshit bara Elohim et Ha-Shamaym vet Ha’aretz. Literally translated this reads: In the beginning created God (plural noun) the the (sic) Heavens and the the (sic) Earth. Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum states that this plural noun is also used to refer to pagan gods.⁵ The point being that the same word used in two different contexts is always a plural noun. Old Testament evidences for the plurality of the God head also include reference to Plural verbs used with the word Elohim (Gen 20:13, Gen 35:7, II Sam 7:23, Psalm 58:11)⁶

Reference to the unity of God is well established in the Old Testament. The most well know example, especially amongst Jews, is the Sh’ma of Deuteronomy 6:4. Sh’ma Y’israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad. – Translated this is Hear O Israel, the Lord, your God, is one Lord. Dr Fruchtenbaum again emphasises the fact that the more correct translation here is “your Gods” Therefore the correct translation would be The Lord, your Gods, is one Lord. Thus the Old Testament supports multiple personalities within the single “entity” of God.

The New Testament is replete with examples of references to the triune God. When John baptised Jesus the Spirit descended upon him, and His Father declared Him to be His Son (Mat 3:16-17). Christ gave the commandment to his disciples in Mathew 28:19 to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. C. FitzSimons Allison states Thus, the Trinity is essentially God’s name: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, one God. This being so we are made aware of a God who understands relationships, commitment, love and community. There is no sacrifice of individuality yet perfect unity in the coexistence of three persons with a common purpose and a unity of mind through out eternity.

If ever a case could be made that the Bible contains contradictions then the dual natures of Jesus would be the fertile ground to form such and argument. Is Jesus human or divine? The fact that he is both is not an entirely new concept, as the Greeks and Romans had their demi gods, half man and half god. However, Jesus is not part God and part man, he is fully human and fully God. The Scriptures makes it clear that the Messiah shall be the Son of God. Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man. He was born by Mary, but conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Scriptures which emphasise Christ’s humanity: John 1:14, 1 Tim 3:16, Luke 1:26-38, Luke 2:5-7, John 4:6, Matt 4:2, John 19:28, Luke 22:44, Matt 4:1, Luke 2:52, John 14:28, Luke 6:12, John 11:35, Mat 15:34. In contrast the following emphasise Christ’s divinity: John 1:1, Heb 1:3, Matt 11:28, John 6:35, John 7:37, Luke 2:40, John 8:58, Heb 2:6-7, John 14:9, John 10:30, Acts 10:31, John 11:43, 2 Cor 5:19.⁹ Addtionally, Phil 2:5-7 clearly states that Christ is God and took on human form: Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.

When Christ suffered and died on the Cross it was a human body that suffered and died. When He was born it was as a human child. When He learned, ate, drank and lived in community, it was as a human. As Chafer puts it: If He were not man, He could not die; if He were not God, His death would not have had infinite value.¹⁰ Jesus therefore was fully human. It is this fact that supplies mankind the sacrifice that was sufficient to forgive sin. Without the humanity of Jesus no suitable sacrifice could be found to provide the way to reconciliation with God the Father. It is the Humanity of Christ that bridges the gap between man and God. It is the mechanism that allows God to experience the suffering of mankind, know what it is to be tempted in all things, and experience the full frailty of the human condition.

Through the humanity of Christ, God affirms what it is to be human. This is most important. God values humanity and all that being human means. A value considered great enough for His Son to suffer and die on the cross. Being human is affirmed above all other creatures and Christ taking on human form is Gods ultimate statement of the value of humanity.

Christ’s divine nature is seen in the fact that he lived a perfect life. He was sinless throughout his life and it was this that made him fit to perform his duties as the Saviour of the world. His death and resurrection are the ultimate evidence of his divinity.

There have been countless departures from Christian Orthodoxy. The Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople wrestled with numerous heretical teachings. Gnosticism, Marcionism, Adoptionism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Docetism, Sabelianism, Macedonianism and Donatism¹¹ were addressed by one or both of these councils. Out of this council came the Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople, which affirms the Orthodox faith and answers the teachings which sought to redefine who God was, who Jesus was, and how the members of the Godhead related to each other. The limits and bounds of the Christian faith were defined by the men of courage and devotion who attended these councils. As Alison observes the Creeds were necessary to separate true Christian doctrine from the Docetic and Adoptionist heresies of the day.¹²

There are two main streams of heretical belief. The first denies the Divinity of Christ, the second denies his humanity. Each of the Heresies listed above can broadly be categorised as falling into one or other of these stables. These two poles of opposition to Orthodox doctrine are, according to C. FitzSimons Allison, centred around two cities; Alexandria and Antioch. Antioch was the home of the adherents of the Docetic grouping and Alexandria that of the Adoptionists. Alison lists the following traits for each: Alexandria; Platonic, Greek, Unity, Allegorical use of scripture, Philosophical (metaphysical), Mystical, Gnostic, no real incarnation, Spiritual, and Flight; Antioch, Aristotelian, Judaic, Diversity, Literal use of Scripture, Ethical, Rational, Legalistic, No real atonement, Historical and self-centredness.

Under Docetism we can list the Marcionism, Montanism, Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Albigensianism, Sabellianism (Modalistic Monarchism), Apolinarianism, Eutychianism; Christian Science, and New Age; Under Adoptionism we include Ebionism, Socinianism, Dynamic Monarchianism,, Arianism, Psilanthropism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, and Unitarianism. Each denies a truth about God or the natures of Christ that have pastoral implications.

Allison states: Reinhold Neibuhr was fond of warning that “In the beginning God created man in his own image and ever since man has sought to return the compliment.¹³ We should not really be surprised that man in his fallen state seeks easier softer ways to reconcile to God. After all, if we can earn our way to heaven then we can look God in the eye and say “Didn’t I do well?”

Each heresy either sacrifices the value of humanity by declaring that it is evil and must be destroyed by the spiritual, or sacrifices the spiritual redemption provided by Christ by faith, and reduces salvation to an unobtainable requirement to achieve holiness through ones own efforts. Both adoptionism and docetism produce fruits in the believer contradictory to those promised by Christ to those who believe in him.

The pastoral implications of Doceism are flight into a “spiritual” realm that either produces license or asceticism. Docetism, in its various forms, asserts that that which is human is either evil or illusory. This results in either denial of the importance of acts committed “in the body”, which provides license to do a one pleases, or a sense that all “earthly pleasures” are evil and must be avoided.

The dangers of such a philosophical view of Christianity are best illustrated by the following example given by Allison in his book “The Cruelty of Heresy”:

Gnostic versions of Christianity saw both flesh and time as prisons for our allegedly pure and innocent souls.
The persistence of this idea through the centuries is indicated by Robert Browning’s nineteenth-century poem, “Paracelsus”:
Truth is within ourselves: it takes no rise
From outward things, whatever you may believe.
There is an inmost center in us all,
Where truth abides in fullness; and around,
Wall upon wall, the gross flesh hems it in,
This perfect, clear perception – which is truth.
Blinds it, and makes all error: and to know
Rather consists in opening a way
Whence the imprisoned splendor may escape,
Than in effecting entry for a light
Supposed to be without.

This was favourably quoted in, of all places, a church bulletin. While discussing its radical distortion of Christianity, a young woman responded, “I see nothing wrong with that. Isn’t that the ways things are?” This same young woman later committed suicide and in such a way as to show she meant to free the “truth” and “light” of her “inmost center” by a dreadful attack with a knife on her “gross flesh.” ¹⁴

Docetisms tendency is to flee. It sees the flesh as illusory or evil, the spiritual as good and perfect. The above example is an extreme case of the ultimate denial of what it means to be human. Christ by taking on human form affirms our humanity, and the value of human life. The axiom Grace never destroys nature¹⁵ is not acknowledged by the salvation offered by Docetic heresies. The spiritual will, Docetism tells us, ultimately free us from our flesh and humanity which is evil and must be rejected. God does not reject our humanity. He redeems it.

In contrast to the escape of Docetism, Christianity promises redemption and internal change that enables two people to love each other in all their concreteness.¹⁶ The point Allison is making here is that Docetic behaviour is evidenced in peoples lives in various ways. Flight, being a major facet of this philosophy, is worked out in divorce courts, public bars, drug use, and fantasy filled romantic novels. He points out that the western romantic mindset does not allow for the main characters of a love story to really get to the business of loving one another. As in Romeo and Juliet, there is an intense period of romance ultimately, leading to the suicide and death of each lead character. There is no long term commitment to love one another “warts and all” once the intensity of the first rush is passed. Docetism is the human attempt to live independently of all others by submersing ones self in the spiritual realm which has nothing to do with the nastiness of the real world.

Adoptionism, which denies Christ’s divinity, insists that we can earn our way to heaven. Jesus being “just a man” lived such a perfect life that he was adopted into God’s family. This is what Allison calls the Good News of Adoptionism. All we have to do is to try harder. The pastoral result of this theology is personal striving for the rank of “Perfect”, or a lowering of the standard God has imposed upon human kind to make salvation “achievable”. It produces a self-righteousness in those who have “made it”, and an anxiety in those who know they have not.

Many honest folk have given up trying, realising the impossibility of their task. One such man was David Hume who on his death bed lamented he had not been able to rid Ireland of Christianity. As FitzSimons observes Hume was not rejecting Orthodox Christianity. Hume’s departure from Christianity is a complicated matter. Too few philosophers and historians have noted the understandable reaction, not to orthodoxy but to Hume’s mistaking a cruelly oppressive heresy as orthodox Christianity.¹⁷ Allison asserts it was Hume’s reaction to reading the “Whole Duty of Man” that drove him from Christianity.

The key to understanding the difficult implications for every day living that spring out of these departures from Orthodox teachings lies in a simple question and an overarching truth. The question is “How am I saved?”, and the overarching truth is we, as human beings, become like that which we worship. The question is a matter of the study of salvation, the second a matter of fact. Allison observes that Irenaeus’s answers to the heresies of his day addressed them by asking the question “How are we saved? Allison states:

The key to Irenaeus’s teaching is its soteriological (study of salvation) focus: the purpose of Christianity is salvation, the restoration of humans to unity with God. All philosophical and religious speculation is merged into the single concern of scripture’s story of salvation. Irenaeus does not speculate on the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but contents himself with describing their functions in the Saving of humankind. His is one of the earliest theological expressions of the doctrine of the Trinity. ¹⁸

Two crucial affirmations mark the lasting contribution of Irenaeus. First, “The Son of God (has) become a son of man”; that is, the redemptive work of Christ depends fully on the identity of his humanity with our humanity. Second, “Jesus Christ, [is] true man and true God.” Our salvation depends upon the fact that “God was in Christ”, reconciling the world unto himself”(2 Cor 5 19). This high point of theology concerning Christ and his work (Christology) was not to be attained again until the Council of Chalcedon three centuries later.

God, being triune gives us our community and relational pattern of love. Christ in his human and divine natures reconciles God to man. Because Jesus is human he is able to pay the price for our redemption. He does not destroy his humanity or earn his divinity in his act of redemption. He does not flee from pain, physically or emotionally. He experienced what it is to be human in a fallen world and finds humanity worth paying the ultimate price for.

We become like that which we worship. This is an observable fact. Watch any sports mad young child imitate the best exponents of his chosen sport. His goal to be like his sporting hero is obvious and his admiration (worship) of his idol produces the sincerest form of flattery – imitation. C. FizSimons Allison observes: Since we tend to become like what we worship, and since we were created in the image of God, the commandment not to worship “any other gods but me” is not an expression of the jealousy of God for Gods sake, but for ours. To bow down before and to become like anything or anyone but God himself is ultimately for us to begin to be recreated in some other image.¹⁹

If we were to worship a God who knows nothing of being human, then it would of course follow that our lives would be spent trying to escape the “human condition”. If God was only spirit, then the spiritual would be our home and our body a trap. If Jesus was however only human, and not divine, and God saw he was perfect and so adopted him, our lives would be about split loyalties. Do we worship the separate entity Jesus, or God? Do we see in this relationship eternal love, or love for which one has to prove oneself worthy to be loved? As Allison observes, what sort of family would place such conditions of behaviour on children, making them earn their parents love. Sadly this is true in many families the fruits of which are self evident. God, however, is not seeking for humanity to prove itself to him. He extends love to all freely. Jesus lives in eternal relationship with His Father and the Holy Spirit, is fully human and fully divine. We worship a God that affirms and loves who we are, and promises good things to us by Grace. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit represent the perfect loving relationship, and Jesus the ultimate act of love.

The pastoral implications of Docetism and Adoptionism have been briefly touched on. Let us now look at how these heresies provide aid and comfort to despots and tyrants. The three philosophers who stand out in this matter in recent history are Hegel, Nietzsche and Schleiermacher.

In his book, Resurrecting the Third Reich, Terrell makes the following observation:

Emerging out of this philosophical picture, grounded in Hegel and Nietzsche, was the recognition of he proposition that man is the measure of all things. It is virtually impossible to distinguish between God and man in these philosophies. With Hegel, the activity of man is the activity of God, whereas in Nietzsche the concept of God is thrown out altogether, with humanity emergent, at least in potentiality, as God.
However important the Hegelian deification of the State and Nietzsche’s attack on Christianity, another important element contributed greatly to the formation of the German religious attitudes that would leave the population intellectually and spiritually disarmed before the rise of Nazism. The central premise here is the subjectivity of truth, and the central figure is the philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 – 1864)

As in Hegel and Nietzsche, Schleiermacher’s thought makes humanity the ultimate measure of spiritual truth. Because humans were thought to share a oneness with God through participation in the life of the spirit of the universe, inner sentiment was seen as a reliable guide to religious truth. Dogmatic matters, creeds, and the reliability of Scripture were peripheral elements for Schleiermacher, who is regarded by many as the “father” of modern liberal theology. Oddly, his principle concern was to defend Christianity in the face of the growing power of scepticism. He was concerned that the rationalist attacks on Christian faith by the philosophers of the European Enlightenment would destroy Christianity. Rather than seek premises and evidences with which to defend the historic faith, Schleiermacher chose to refashion Christianity itself so as to make it appealing to the “cultured despisers” of religion. He had, then, and apologetic intent – that of preserving Christianity against scepticism of the Enlightenment. His approach, however, was very strange. He replied to attacks upon Christian doctrinal understandings by saying, in essence, that doctrines and historical evidences were not important anyway, that what mattered was the inner spiritual consciousness of human beings, not the acts of God in history and the witness of Scripture. ²⁰

Here Terrell bears witness to a resurrected form of Docetism. All that matters is the spiritual. The fruits of this departure from Orthodox Theology should be as well known as they were devastating. In an attempt to accommodate unbelief within Christendom Schleiermacher provided the Christian theological bricks that significantly contributed to the cultural foundations which allowed the rise of German despotism. Hitler set himself up as a deity. The Church, with notable exceptions, capitulated. Terrell states: The further away from biblical authority the church moved, the more vulnerable it was to the distortion which equated Christian faith with German culture. One can see the seeds of future tragedy in the thinking of prominent theologians of the early twentieth century. Having adopted the conclusions of the higher critics that there could be no “once for all” revelation, they opted for the Hegelian concept of salvation of historical processes, with that process now seen as raising up German culture as a redemptive principle for humanity.²¹ Germany was therefore spiritually bereft and ripe for the picking. Hitler and the Nazi partly obliged.

The importance of contending for the faith and the veracity of Christianity is well summed up by Rabbi Haberman: The suspension of the Bible's moral "barriers" made possible all the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, and other totalitarian rulers. It is no accident that the Soviet State and Hitler's Third Reich both identified the Bible and its teachers as primary enemies... Rosenburg was not mistaken in judging the Bible to be incompatible with Nazi philisopy. The Bible mandates a Supreme Law, to which all human creatures, even the Fuhrer, must submit...On the whole, the official clerical leadership of German Protestantism and Catholicism left a dismal record of compromise, submission and collaboration with the Nazi regime. Not so the members of the dissident Confessing Church...which following Karl Barth's staunch fidelity to Scriptural theology, felt impelled to reject "unscriptural" Nazi views." ²²

Thus understanding why it is important to insist that God is a triune God, and why it is important to insist that Jesus is fully human and fully divine in nature is vital. To redefine Orthodoxy in an attempt to find more “sensible”, logical or acceptable forms of Christianity is to risk consequences that have been and still are, far reaching and potentially catastrophic. When mankind departs from the Orthodox position concerning how we view God, and the person of Jesus Christ, the resulting theological systems cause harm and produce confusion. Some encourage pride in those who have supposedly achieved spiritual perfection, and others provide theological and philosophical space for despots to rise and rule. Without understanding the foundations of our faith we are unable to recognise falsehood when presented to us as correct Christian doctrine. The self centred nature of human kind is a veritable factory of idols, ever given over to justifying our sinfulness and attempting to escape the pain that true love for mankind will cause. So as St Paul exhorted his young trainee Timothy, we must pay close attention to ourselves and our teaching, being ever vigilant to oppose that which is errant. Orthopraxy (right practice) springs only ever from Orthodoxy (right teaching/opinion).

Footnotes:

R Richard Terrell, Resurrecting the Third Reich, Are We Ready for America’s Modern Fascism?, (Huntington House Publishers, Louisiana 70505), 21
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes, 52 Vital Doctrines of the Scriptures Simplified and Explained, (Zonderdvan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1974), 41
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volumes 1 & 2, Prologemena, Bibliology, Theology Proper, (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 1976), 273
Dr Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Trinity, (http://www.arielm.org/dcs/pdf/mbs050m.pdf), 6
Ibid, 6
Dr Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Trinity,(http://www.arielm.org/dcs/pdf/mbs050m.pdf), 15
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes, 52 Vital Doctrines of the Scriptures Simplified and Explained, (Zonderdvan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1974), 56-57
Ibid, 56
Ibid
Ibid, 101
Ibid, 60
Ibid, 112
Ibid, 64
Ibid, 126
Ibid, 54
Ibid, 71
Richard Terrell, Resurrecting the Third Reich, Are We Ready for America’s Modern Fascism?, (Huntington House Publishers, Louisiana 70505), 33
Ibid, 58
Ibid, 208

Bibliography

A New Zealand Prayer Book, (The Church of the Provence of New Zealand, Colins, 1989)
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, The Cost of Discipleship, (Touchstone, New York 1995)
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Major Bible Themes, 52 Vital Doctrines of the Scriptures Simplified and Explained, (Zonderdvan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1974)
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Systematic Theology, Volumes 1 & 2, Prologemena, Bibliology, Theology Proper, (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 1976)
Ibid, Volume Seven, Doctrinal Summarization
Fruchtembaum, Arnold G., Jesus was a Jew, (Ariel Ministries Press, 1981)
Fruchtenbaum, Dr. Arnold G., The Trinity, (Downloaded 1 March 2010 from: http://www.arielm.org/dcs/pdf/mbs050m.pdf), 6
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell, Th. D, Ph. D, Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition New International Version, (Moody Press Chicago, 1994)
Strong’s Comprehensive Concordance of The Bible
Terrell, Richard, Resurrecting the Third Reich, Are We Ready for America’s Modern Fascism?, (Huntington House Publishers, Louisiana 70505)
Vincent, Marvin R., D.D, Vincent's Word Studies, (Covenant Parsonage, New York, October 30, 1886)

Normative

Main Nav

Saturday, January 22, 2011

The Trinity, The Duality of Christ’s Nature,
And the Consequences of Departing from Christian Orthodoxy

Footnotes:

Bibliography

Contributors