Robert said
I do think that the communal models of the Trinity championed more recently by Jürgen Moltmann and some liberation theologians adds significant depth beyond the modalism of Karls Barth and Rahner.
  

Not to be facetious (well not overly facetious) I haven't got to that chapter in Hill's book yet.

I look forward to his discussion of modern interpretations.  One of my itches to scratch is the idea of how to translate concepts that sprang out of an ancient cultural complex into ones vastly different.  Question #1 is, can we even do that?  If so then what is the relation between ancient modes of thought and contemporary modes of thought?  (In what sense can what Augustine and Moltmann do both be considered Christianity?)   And, might there come a mode of thought into which these ancient concepts cannot be translated?   

This is why it does such violence to the NT to try to read Nicene trinitarianism into these texts.   Not seeing this distinction blinds us to the actual views of the NT authors.  One obvious example is Philippians 2,6-11.   For Paul, Jesus’ exaltation and Lordship are fundamentally connected to his obedience and salvific work.  Scholars and students naturally go in looking for clues to Jesus' nature but that's not Paul's focus.  

And even John's Logos is defined less by form than by function.  This contextualizes the famous "I am" statements.   Jesus and the Father are one, not in essence, but one in mission and purpose.   This is why when you see Jesus you see the Father!

The soul cries out as he takes delivery of a new book about the Trinity, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, by William J Hill, O.P., Professor Emeritus of Theology at The Catholic University of America. (Highly spoken of by Prof Dünzl.)   Triune Deity help me I have become absorbed by the subject. 

Sorry about the self-revealing but it's important to understand that I ingest culture by "Total Immersion".  All culture.  I have been known to listen to a single CD (or at times a single song) over and over. For days.  Last summer I read both the 1818 and 1831 editions of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, followed by listening to an audio-version of the 1818 edition.  (This explains the hiatus in the Enoch thread. I have not abandoned it.  Far from it.  Mr. Enoch decided to step aside for a bit.  But he'll be back.  To quote that great philosopher John Wayne, it's as sure as the turnin' of the earth...  

But anyway...why do these nice books about the Trinity seem to only come from Roman Catholics?  I suspect it simply follows from their respect for tradition and the acceptance of the idea of the "unveiling" of God's revelation over time.  Protestants, children of the Reformation, saddled with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, have a much harder time of it.  At the worst they write books trying to detect full blown Nicene trinitarianism in the NT. (A position they're rather forced into by their assumptions.  If all authority derives from scripture then all correct doctrine must already be there in the text right from the getgo.  Never mind what Justin Martyr said!  Yes, I know that's not exactly fair.  But I was raised by folks who thought nothing really existed in the space between Paul and our church!)

Still approaching the subject is daunting even on a spring day when the cherry blossoms are blooming.  You only begin with the texts of the NT.  Patristics. Scholastics.  Reformation and Enlightenment.  Not to mention modernity!   In his short but knowing preface Prof Hill points out the irony that the central Mystery of the Faith is so seldom the focus of attention.  Either the scribe bogs down in historical minutiae or regulates the subject to "Mystery".    

Hill quotes Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner who wrote that in their practical life, Christians are "mere" monotheists and were the doctrine of the Trinity to be declared false, "the major part of religious literature would remain virtually unchanged." Now the cynic might be tempted to point out how the development of the doctrine of the Trinity demonstrates so clearly the influence of contingency and chance, personality and pathology in so holy a revelation.  Some sights are best not examined too closely lest we be disillusioned.  How often God's Will looks so much like Bunyan's Vanity Fair!  But then if we're going to ever spy out God then where else would we expect him to be found?  Right? 

But these human oh so human confusions, foibles and complexes are the part that so fascinates me about it.   Imagine how the jealousy of one Bishop for another can shape the intellectual and spiritual life of the West for 1600 years!   You know friends, it could have been much different.  

Lastly, about the idea of the Trinity as a Mystery.  In my present state of ignorance I can see the utility of this conception. On a functional level anyway.  Like a Zen koan, contemplation of its unreasonableness works to jolt the mind into a higher spiritual state that soars beyond Aristotelian logic.  That it doesn't make any "sense" becomes the whole point.  

Life in a poor village would have been hard scrabble. Along comes this close-knit loving community that offers hope, led by a charismatic leader whom you learn to love and trust.  That time during Jesus' active ministry, however long it lasted until he went to Jerusalem, must have been the best.       

Robert, I agree. I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I was speaking about a tendency I recognize in ordinary church life, including forms I know.

Tjalling said

Part of why it happens so seldom, I suspect, is that the question is genuinely uncomfortable from the inside. It seems easy for church life to become listening, agreeing, and going home, while what Christ cares about in Matthew 25 remains less central than it should be: feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, visiting the prisoner, caring for the least of these. These are not marginal illustrations.
I also wonder whether grace is sometimes received as reassurance without being allowed to become discipleship. If Christians have to be reminded of this mostly from the outside, something has already gone wrong. I do say that as one of the things that troubles me most from within it.

I think at least some churches and communities consider the practice of the teaching of Mt 25 as the most important focus of their mission.
  

Stephen said

Ideally this would be one of those disputes best conducted amongst believers themselves but as an interested outsider it is a bit surprising how seldom this kind of internal discussion takes place.   Leaving it up to the outsider robs the critique of most of its force.   
  

I think that is fair. 

Part of why it happens so seldom, I suspect, is that the question is genuinely uncomfortable from the inside. It seems easy for church life to become listening, agreeing, and going home, while what Christ cares about in Matthew 25 remains less central than it should be: feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, visiting the prisoner, caring for the least of these. These are not marginal illustrations.

I also wonder whether grace is sometimes received as reassurance without being allowed to become discipleship. If Christians have to be reminded of this mostly from the outside, something has already gone wrong. I do say that as one of the things that troubles me most from within it.

Tjalling said
Stephen, people can go back and forth without end on the historical ledger of Christianity's good and bad effects. The very sharp question, for me, is the one you raised in post 22: if the Christian claims are true, why is the fruit so often obscured among Christians themselves? As a Christian I do not want to dodge that. There are familiar replies one can reach for, but I would rather not reach for one here. If Christ is true, then the ways Christians have obscured him are not a side issue. They are part of the burden Christians have to face.
  

Ideally this would be one of those disputes best conducted amongst believers themselves but as an interested outsider it is a bit surprising how seldom this kind of internal discussion takes place.   Leaving it up to the outsider robs the critique of most of its force.   

White's opening statement does really say it all.

Stephen said
the historical/critical approach is to begin by demonstrating the diverse Christologies present in the NT and tracing the development of the idea of what only much later came to be accepted as orthodox doctrine.  

Indeed.

Not one Christ but many.

I will say I’ve often wondered about the move from Oneness to Trinitarianism.  Although I’m sure more than one person has made the move, the only one who comes to mind is Greg Boyd.

It might be time for me to read ** you do not have permission to see this link ** of his.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

White is a Calvinist apologist.  Smith is a Unitarian apologist.

This "debate" is unsatisfactory on multiple levels but it does provide us a view of what I would regard as a fundamentalist approach and a devout response to that approach.

White is quite honest and open about his presuppositions.  And it's these presuppositions that show the weaknesses in his argument.  From his opening statement-

So does the Bible teach the Trinity? Well, that depends on whether you define the necessary consistent conclusion of the teaching of the entirety of the Christian scriptures as fulfilling the Bible teaching or whether you demand specific terminology to be used for a teaching to be present. So if you look up the word "Trinity", it's not going to be found in the Bible anywhere. So you automatically dismiss it. I am saying that when you believe in Sola Scriptura, scripture is your sole infallible rule of faith and Tota Scriptura, believing in all of scripture that the necessary conclusion is that you will believe in the doctrine of the trinity which means I believe that the Unitarians are either bringing in an external traditional lens tradition that keeps them from seeing that God is described and and Jesus especially is fulfilling things in the New Testament. 

Both men think that the Bible is univocal, speaking with but one voice, though of course they disagree on what that one voice is saying. There might be differences in approach or aspect between the various Biblical writers but they are all seen as essentially collaborators.   This approach to the text must necessarily follow from an acceptance of sola/tota scriptura.  There can be no theological or revelatory progression.  All doctrine must be present entire, right from the beginning.  

This is what is truly frustrating about such debates among various flavors of the faithful.  I would want to examine these beginning propositions.  If we ignore this aspect then the whole "debate" becomes terminally ahistorical.  What they are arguing over is not some abstract idea of Trinitarianism that fell from between the clouds one day in mid-first century Judaea but Nicene Trinitarianism, which became official doctrine after centuries of argument between various groups of Christian believers.  (In conversation with Hellenism of course.)  

This kind of debate winds up getting bogged down in arguments over the interpretation of a string of Bible passages completely divorced of context.  

Sooo... the historical/critical approach is to begin by demonstrating the diverse Christologies present in the NT and tracing the development of the idea of what only much later came to be accepted as orthodox doctrine.  

Way too broad for a single formal debate.   

A good translation is a long and arduous process, even if one knows both languages extremely well. Even if I had the time and patience, there are other works that would probably have a higher priority.

Indeed. If only the academy could agree to learn and work in a single language . . .