With Apologies to Jesus and the Trinity

[T-Bone]

Cynic

"Jesus was the Messiah promised in Old Testament scriptures. Jesus was born of a virgin. Jesus suffered and died. Jesus made propitiation for sins. Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus ascended into heaven. Jesus will return from heaven. Jesus will have his elect gathered. Jesus will render vengeance to them who know not God and who do not obey the gospel.

The preceding paragraph consists of a topical collection of propositional statements based on indications of various scriptures. There is no single place in Scripture that states all that is affirmed by those statements. The statements have a historical/eschatological aspect and an aspect of communicating proper belief, thus are doctrinal in character.

The statements elude McGrath's rather Kantian account of the relationship between Scripture and doctrine, however, because they function to repeat biblical testimony, rather than to interpret it. I think it doubtful that you or McGrath could find many thoughtful and informed theologians, philosophers, teachers, accountants, mechanics, painters, barflies, or strippers either to conclude the statements are vacant of doctrinal content or to separate them from Scripture by characterizing them as a humanly constructed interpretive framework."

Cynic, we [the informed mechanic helping me adjust the carburetor on my truck and myself] agree those statements are full of doctrinal stuff. But we fail to see your reasoning in equating them with Scripture. And I'm NEVER loaning any books to an informed stripper ever again!

Edited March 24, 2006 by T-Bone

[Cynic]

Cynic, we [the informed mechanic helping me adjust the carburetor on my truck and myself] agree those statements are full of doctrinal stuff. But we fail to see your reasoning in equating them with Scripture. And I'm NEVER loaning any books to an informed stripper ever again!

T-Bone,

I have not engaged in “equating” the statements I presented with Scripture. There is distinction between Scripture and those statements, perhaps somewhat similarly as there would be distinction between a volume containing all the published works of a composer and a short medley by a nightclub pianist that repeats some fragments and other somewhat altered fragments from the volume. There is proximity of content, however, between the statements and the testimony of Scripture. I do allow, however, that there is some interpretative activity involved in the mere selection of scriptures one attempts to retell.

I do not understand why McGrath categorically characterizes doctrine as something alien from Scripture that serves as an interpretive framework for Scripture. Scripture itself communicates doctrine. Paul’s statements in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 reiterate elements of redemptive history that Paul had previously announced and held up as things proper and obligatory to be believed. It seems likely from your previous post that, if pressed, you and your mechanic would recognize there is a doctrinal character to scriptural statements in their purely scriptural habitat.

McGrath’s citing of a Victorian-era garden analogy to characterize doctrine as an ordered arrangement of biblical testimony outside of its original habitat suggests what McGrath is referring to as “doctrine” is solely the formulations of systematic theology. Systematic theology, as you seem quite aware, is a human product that presents or purports to present scriptural testimony in a topical fashion (e.g. what Scripture says about God, about Christ, about the Holy Spirit, about creation, about sin, about redemption, about the end of the world, et al.). Systematic theology is doctrinal by nature, but it does not exhaust everything that would properly be called doctrine.

Systematic theological statements themselves differ in the extent to which they involve repetitions of biblical testimony, interpretations of biblical testimony, or speculation beyond biblical testimony. For example, the substitutionary view of the Atonement is more informed by scriptural testimony than is the Traducian Theory about how a human soul comes about in an infant.

Enough of this. McGrath’s comments provide no place for Socinians to hide. Socinians can find no refuge in the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicated by a biblical writer.

(I have actually maintained, a number of times, on ex-Wayfer forums that the Trinity is a biblically necessary doctrine rather than a biblically explicit one.)

The danger for Socinians lies not in their rejection of the dogmatic formulations of ecclesiastical bodies or their distaste for the explications of Trinitarian theologians. The danger for them lies in their suppression and rejection of things explicitly revealed concerning Christ by Scripture.

Edited March 26, 2006 by Cynic

[CM]

hmmm kind of deep for me but i'll jump in

the scripture themselves are not doctrine

it's the instruction in righteousness that is

cuz how can so much of the scriptures be applied

literally and even figuratively as they stand

without the guidance provided as promised by the Comforter

the scriptures remain dead and useful in only gaining a knowledge of what it says

so that they can be brought to remembrance as promised again as we gain the ability to

see a spiritual and quite informative living will of God and the Spirit and Christ

and i will never ever get into a debate on the trinity-pro or anti or in between

it must open itself up to me as well as the rest of the scriptures

and more then that but present tense application which

is instruction in righteousness that will not go against it is written

but further illuminate it in my mind

so books serve there purpose in the mental logical progression

as well as the spiritual enlightenment that only God can provide

and with the help of others who speak the language of the Spirit

and all forms of logic and osophys can be explored

without the fear of being caught in a trap again

because you must keep the freedom to think and decide for yourself

[T-Bone]

T-Bone,

I have not engaged in "equating" the statements I presented with Scripture. There is distinction between Scripture and those statements, perhaps somewhat similarly as there would be distinction between a volume containing all the published works of a composer and a short medley by a nightclub pianist that repeats some fragments and other somewhat altered fragments from the volume. There is proximity of content, however, between the statements and the testimony of Scripture. I do allow, however, that there is some interpretative activity involved in the mere selection of scriptures one attempts to retell.

I do not understand why McGrath categorically characterizes doctrine as something alien from Scripture that serves as an interpretive framework for Scripture. Scripture itself communicates doctrine. Paul's statements in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 reiterate elements of redemptive history that Paul had previously announced and held up as things proper and obligatory to be believed. It seems likely from your previous post that, if pressed, you and your mechanic would recognize there is a doctrinal character to scriptural statements in their purely scriptural habitat.

Cynic, I don't have a problem with any of what you said. I think you're right. Perhaps I'm not communicating my idea very well...I see Scripture as the source of doctrine - I'm not suggesting we pull this "framework" out of thin air. A student of the Bible is seeing things that seem logically associated with other things. And that is what I am drawing the attention to - our mind plays a role in making these associations - in attempting to understand a doctrine.

I think about the differences in doctrines of denominations. In my opinion, that's indicative of people seeing things a little bit differently...We're all looking at the same thing - but we each may notice some nuance of difference...And yes - perhaps my logic is flawed in certain areas, or what I "see" is something coming from a bias I have. That's one of the problems we have as imperfect humans...

Edited March 27, 2006 by T-Bone