The Essentials: Identifying Beliefs (Part Four)
Already my list of essential identifying doctrines of Christianity includes the gospel proclamation, the deity of Christ, and the resurrection. These doctrines certainly distinctively identify Christians from other faiths. Moreover, each of these doctrines is Christological and Trinitarian in character. That being said, I must include one more identifying doctrine to the list: The Trinity. This is the God of Christianity, the God we worship, the God through whom the covenant with Abraham was made so long ago and was fulfilled in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. To remove the Trinity from Christianity is to remove the Christian God.
While I will not delineate the doctrine here, I would like to mention that we as Christians find support for the doctrine of the Trinity from the scriptures to a certain degree and from tradition to a larger degree. The scriptures make mention of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in certain contexts along with their roles (for examples see Matt. 28:19; John 8:15-19; 20:21-22; etc.). However, the actual detailed development of this doctrine comes from the creeds and councils of the Church (for examples see The Apostle’s Creed, The Nicene Creed, Epistle of St. Dionysius, Council of Rome, etc.).
Therefore, along with the other doctrines mentioned above, naturally the Trinity should be included since that doctrine is the delineation of the Christian God.
[More to come]
While I will not delineate the doctrine here, I would like to mention that we as Christians find support for the doctrine of the Trinity from the scriptures to a certain degree and from tradition to a larger degree. The scriptures make mention of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in certain contexts along with their roles (for examples see Matt. 28:19; John 8:15-19; 20:21-22; etc.). However, the actual detailed development of this doctrine comes from the creeds and councils of the Church (for examples see The Apostle’s Creed, The Nicene Creed, Epistle of St. Dionysius, Council of Rome, etc.).
Therefore, along with the other doctrines mentioned above, naturally the Trinity should be included since that doctrine is the delineation of the Christian God.
[More to come]
posted by T.B. Vick | 9:10 AM
5 Comments:
David W. states, “How about putting the 'gospel' and 'resurrection' together instead of separate.”
I actually would take no issue with this, especially since the gospel includes the resurrection.
David states, “I think you could rephrase 'deity of Christ' as 'the worship of Christ' or 'divinity of Christ'. Deity connotes to my mind an articulated theory like Chalcedon which seems unnecessary.”
Actually would not take issue with this either – however, the nuance between terms here does not seem to pose as many problems/issues as I think you think it does. But, nonetheless, divinity of Christ had been considered when I was typing up the posts. Moreover, divinity of Christ seems to denote a need for worship and all that entails (i.e. community love, Eucharist, etc.) when you unpack the term.
David states, “Finally you mention 'Trinity'. I wonder if you mean more than the deity of Christ since you don't mention the Spirit yet.”
I mean Trinity in the historical sense (which entails Father, Son, Holy Spirit), so yes, I actually mentioned Spirit, unless you are drawing some type of distinction here (?)
David states, “Unless of course you want to claim essentials are evolving, and then I could go with that and much more.”
This is in fact what I was getting at with the Trinity, by mentioning that scripture discusses Trinity, but Church tradition has, in essence developed the doctrine. David, all theology is a developing process; I have actually posted such quotes and comments regarding this notion.
I simply disagree with your claim that Israel’s scriptures are essential (or any scripture for that matter, old or new testament), this I will discuss in the next post.
David goes on the declare, “Another essential: A belief in the participation in a common greater mission with other people and congregations elsewhere is reflected in the early tradition of Jesus sayings and epistles. Thus the need for accountability, debate, exchange, canon to norm the mission arise. Not privatized individual divine enlightenment solely, but historically mediated and performed truth. Baptism and eucharist, both variously understood seem essential to the practice of the catholic faith or at least omni-present (but what about Quakers or salvation army?) The practice of love should also be added.”
Once again, I would disagree with you here, David. I do not see any of the above as essentials; perhaps, extensions of certain essentials, but not essentials in themselves. Anyway, thanks for the feedback.
BTW, David, you should really put together a blog - I think you could/would contribute a lot to the theological "blog world."
You ever considered that?
David sates: "I sort of think blogs are given to pretentious displays. We think we are acomplishing something but we are largely talking to ourselves taking energy away from needed tasks elsewhere. Plus I am isolated enough socially that I am afraid I would begin to depend on it too much socially. It's just too artificial for that purpose."
Wouldn't the same things apply to comments on blogs? 8-)
David states: "And I regard the Arians as believing in the essence of the faith. Don't you?"
No, I actually do not due to their rejection of the divinity of Christ (not to mention the Church declaring the view heresy).
David states:
"I look forward to your thoughts on the 'non-essentiality' of the Scriptures"
Well, I should have worded my objection differently (it needed to be qualified) - but that will have to wait for tomorrow's grande finale post! :-)
David states:
"That is why I said 'divinity' or worship mattered because the Arians worshipped Jesus as god. They just reconciled the relationship of Father and Son in an unsatisfactory way. They were not Unitarians after all. So Arianism may have been an error but I don't think it kept them and perhaps a majority of Chrisendom at and up to that time from practicing and believing the essence of the faith when they wrongly conceived the Trinitarian relationship in various ways."
Yes, I see your point (well made) and agree. I agree with the terminology "divinity of Christ" as opposed to deity. As for worship of Christ, I have no issue, and would agree with your points, I just think that the worship of Christ is something which stems from the divinity of Christ - we worship Christ in all forms of worship because Christ is divine, because Christ is resurrected, etc. But I would not see the worship of Christ - in and of itself - as an essential - although I would say it is important (necessary) in so far as it relates to or stems from those things I have listed as essential (hope that makes a little sense).
Post a Comment
<< Home