Is the Trinity biblical?

Certainly.  

As is Unitarianism, Oneness Pentecostalism and every other denomination under the sun. 

Those who developed the doctrine were highly intelligent (arguably too intelligent perhaps), it was not invented during the Council of Nicaea, it finds it origins in the earliest strata of the Church (though non-Trinitarians claim the same) and it is most certainly rooted in Scripture as the primary source (as any and all who call themselves Christian in some fashion or other claim). 

Are Oneness Pentecostals biblical? Unitarians? Christadelphians? Worldwide Church of God? Jehovah’s Witnesses? 

In other words, whether one agrees with it or not, the Trinity is biblical. 

A better framing of the question might be: in what way does the Trinity doctrine find roots in the Bible?

There is a lot of discussion, online anyhow, about doctrine. Volumes and volumes of books are published on the same subject. I don't know how much this applies in the day to day lives of most who call themselves Christians.

But it dawned on me as I continue my journey into Orthodoxy that I see why people criticize the Orthodox Church (though often lumped in with Catholicism). It is one of the oldest expressions of the faith for certain. Yet in its current form it really dates to the 4th century.

This isn't to deny that it may be traceable back to the Apostles and that the worship the developed in the 4th century reflects truly the earliest church.  But I get it. With the complex doctrines and the formality and 'ritual' that is the church by going Sola Scriptura (understood in a way different than Luther's original intent) the current church only looks for roots in the Bible.

The irony, if I am using that word properly, is a written reflection of the tradition that was passed on and the same church that is criticized is the same church who canonized what we call the New Testament and who also developed doctrine.

Next step, after cutting themselves off from the larger body of the church, is to do some self-reflection and reject the doctrines of the church. This is already happening today. Doctrines are given lip service and half-hearted apologetic but changes are happening on a large scale. 

Oneness Pentecostals, for example, are a growing body of believers who reject the Trinity. There are some who are seeking to do away with the part in the Creed about Jesus going to hell. It's being dismantled, slowly but surely. What will be left? Hard to say.

But all of them go back to the Bible as their source.

So is the Trinity biblical? It most certainly is.

I think what appeals to be about Orthodoxy is twofold:

1) Its embrace of the mystery

This does not mean throw up your hands because it is not understood. It means that doctrine is a hedge, it is a limit. Over hundreds (yes, hundreds, longer than the United States is a country) of years it has been unpacked, all the mental and intellectual limits of how to understand what has been presented in the text we now have we call 'the Bible', and the Trinity is what resulted. However, within (and this is the operative word) those limits is an unfathomable richness. It is this that is mysterious. Doctrine (the Trinity and the God-Man) is both the end and the entry into the divine.

I have found that the end result of all questioning yields to the Trinity.

2) Its doctrinal framework.

It makes sense. It makes sense of the disparate elements between all the books of the New Testament in their presentation of Jesus as well as the Father, Son and Spirit. Certainly there's belief involved. After all, Three-In-One sounds absurd, especially when contrasted with the Judaism out of which it arose.

In the eastern tradition it wasn't until the 7th century that everything was 'settled'. And yet over time there is still more to discover, more nuances, more exploration into what it means. It never really ceased.

And this is where 'new' revelations come in such as Oneness Pentecostals. They say they have it right, that 2,000 years of church history was a power grab. God is speaking afresh and new. Revival! The end times! Jesus is coming soon! It's certainly an interesting time to be alive.

And yet, all are biblical.

My point of all this? Pick one and go with it. Seek to live it, not debate about it.

Cyrillian Christian

As of this moment, I am a Cyrillian Christian. In reading his actual writings, this is the closest I have come to a clear understanding of the mysteries of the faith. Mysteries, not in the sense of not being able to understand, but in the sense of being able to 'intuit' that certain something about what is revealed through the Bible and, as I am continuing to understand, the Tradition of the Church about Jesus Christ.

I understand that this is he interpretation or attempt to explain what the Scriptures reveal. I also understand that if the Gospel of John or Hebrews was removed from what we have in the New Testament these interpretation or 'doctrines' might look a lot different, especially if the Gospel of John were removed.

As with the last post it comes down to choices. There are certain premises that must be accepted (Apocrypha included or not, Tradition seen in a good or bad light, etc.) in order to move forward but, based on those premises, a certain understanding unfolds. 

There is also having to come to terms with the 'ugly' side of how these doctrines came to be and that hearkening back to the Acts Church is fraught with a paradox as the very same 'Tradition' often knocked in modern day Churches is the very same 'Tradition' that put these books of the New Testament together.

It's a battleground but the true test of one's faith should be one's witness and the best witness of this isn't being able to be right but being able to reflect Christ to a world that desperately needs light.

Hank Haanegraaf & Eastern Orthodoxy

Fascinated by Hank's journey. Used to listen to him, often annoyingly so, when he was the "Bible Answer Man" so when I saw he was confirmed into the EO Church I was quite amazed. Jarislav Pelikan as well. 

So of course there are debates and attacks and defenses as to his move and the arguments against EO. One that stood out, however, was from the daughter of Walter Martin. She stated that the EO do not look to the Bible as the final authority.

If you've spent any time studying what it is the EO believe you'll find that is not accurate. What they do believe is that the interpretation of the Bible is what is key and that interpretation is through the lived and share experience of The Church.

I tend toward the EO idea that as the Bible itself was formed within Tradition then the common idea of 'Bible alone' as sole authority loses its footing. The books chosen were developed within Tradition and the writings within those books were developed orally within a Tradition and the use of these books even today occur within Traditions. Even outside of the RC and EO church, mainstream denominations develop a Tradition and beyond this the non-traditional churches all develop their own tradition within which to support a body of believers.

So if the 'Bible only' is all that matters, the challenge is understanding why so many denominations and why it is that there are so many different interpretations of the same book.

I think the strength of Tradition isn't so much that it is on equal weight as the Bible (I think that is a false dichotomy) but that the Bible is the anchor against which Tradition is based. If a Tradition is in conflict with Scripture I don't believe that Tradition will stand without 'Tradition' to safeguard Biblical interpretation the risk is ever present for the individual to become the interpreter which, taken to a logical conclusion, makes the individual god.

As for those who criticize the bureaucratic nature of the Church (usually stereotyped as the Catholic Church), the non-denominational variety running amok today will inevitably become institutionalized. It is the natural trajectory of the doings of men. What was once liberating and free ultimately becomes structured and this structure is bureaucratic in nature or it is a free-for-all. We are not the Spirit and therefore must lean on the Spirit to guide us which means that in order to do this boundaries are needed. Those boundaries are the structure(s) of the Church.

It's already been done once, though obviously we are fallible men so our history of said Church is a testament to this, and anyone who thinks we are free from it happening again are missing the larger historical picture of how it developed in the first place. The debates going on about 'doctrine' today, though in a new cultural context, are little different than those of the first few centuries. 

In Christ, new is creation...

"Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor 5:17, KJV)

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, {he is} a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Cor 5:17, NASB)

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." (Galatians 6:15, KJV)

"For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." (Galatians 6:15, NASB)

In both cases, the Greek is kainos ktisis. Yet in the NASB one is translated "new creature" and the other as "new creation."

The term ktisis can be used as a general term for creation (cf. Romans 1:20).

I'm no expert in Greek but, if I remember correctly, 2 Corinthians 5:17 can read "new (is) creation." Notice the italics in 2 Corinthians 5:17 meaning that the words are not there but are added/implied in the translation.

This makes sense to me, at least in 2 Corinthians 5:17 even in the larger context of New Testament thought. It isn't that we obtain a new nature (after all, what nature would we receive?) but that our existing nature is infused with the Holy Spirit. This is the "born again" experience. It is the power of resurrection working in us. Our old nature is not tossed out, something disposable. In baptism it dies with Christ; in him the resurrection begins and continues through each of us who accept him.

We are given another set of eyes. We see creation anew. New is creation.

Even in Galatians 6:15 this also makes sense. In Christ, not only is man restored but, through man, in Christ, the entire creation is to be restored. This is consistent with Pauline thought:

"For we know that the whole creation (ktisis) groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." (Romans 8:22)

This simply reveals the challenge of translation. There is always bias (not necessarily a bad or negative word) and a theological position behind any translation and it is thus also interpretation.

Yet there is also freedom in this. "New is creation" or "is a new creation" or "is a new creature" are all possibilities, creating a broad expanse of spiritual implications in each variation. Rather than Biblical literalism, why can we not accept that the Word is so much larger than the box we seek to put it in merely for our own comfort?

Debt and the mess we are in...

The root cause of the current economic situation is not the banks, nor the government, nor corporations, nor the decline in manufacturing. No, the root cause is me. And you. We are culpable. We want. We desire. We crave. We are self-centered and consumerism is simply the manifestation of this inner drive. Think about it.

All these other institutions stem from the individuals involved, not from the institutions themselves, as if they run without human intervention.

If we didn't have to own things or want newer or bigger things or the latest technology, the instant gratification of everything now, would we have all this debt? Would we have credit cards? Mortgages we can't afford? Car loans on automobiles worth less than the loan value?

I am just as guilty. I pay my bills on time though I have a debt load that has become a prison. The choices I made years ago still haunt me. Had I followed my own advice then I wouldn't be in the mess I'm in now.

I don't expect a government bailout and don't believe the bailout will fix anything unless we change our behaviour.

"The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower {becomes} the lender's slave." (Proverbs 22:7)

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." (Matthew 6:4)

And the famous, and misquoted:

"For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1 Timothy 6:10)

Yet Paul hits the essence of the matter on the head:

"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled {the} law." (Romans 13:8)

The Jubilee code of Leviticus 25 is a hidden gem in the Bible. It is often overlooked or ignored, perhaps because it is not know if it was every truly practised or if it is because it is buried in the midst of Leviticus' rather dry and lengthy list of shalls and shall nots. But it is well worth visiting.

Here is an interesting article pulled up by a quick search:

The Jubilee Code

I had studied this in some detail while in school but have become rusty on it. Perhaps it is a good time to revisit it and join the debate.

Why the Bible?

Am I any less of a believer because I don't look to the Bible to be the scientifically verifiable, mathematical precise truth? In other words, I am not a literalist.

Did Balaam's ass really talk? Did the sun really stand still for Joshua? Did Jesus really walk on water?

I hold open the possibility. That is my faith. Do I need these to be scientifically, verifiably true?

No.

But of course that opens up other questions: did Jesus really rise from the dead? If so, in what sense? Spiritually? Physically?

Yes.

I believe the claims that it happened according to the Bible. What that means through the lens of my post-enlightenment, post-modern mind is a different story.

It does, however, open up my mind to deeper levels of understanding of the human condition and our purpose on earth. It burrows deep into the soul, beyond the joints and marrow, to quote Hebrews 4:12. It gets in there.

The Bible is a book of community experience, of representative humanity, each book, each chapter, each person a "type" of each of us. We see ourselves, in various situations, in various characters, and it is through their lives as story we begin to see Truth. Truth, in this sense, comes through the pages of the Bible.

If we quote a verse that somehow quoting it means something, we miss the point, as if a mere quote of a verse proves something. It is the application of it that is important, the Word buried in our heart, transforming us into the likeness of He who inspired it. We become the living word. We, in this sense, become the Bible.

The Bible, as it stands, without application, is just a book.

The question remains: Would it be any less true if Jesus didn't walk on water?