The Catholic dogma of the Trinity

by Nic Samojluk

The Catholic Dogma of the Trinity & Latin American Liberation Theology
A Schumman Pavilion S.S. Presentation by Nic Samojluk [Feb. 11/06]

The Catholic Dogma of the Trinity. What is the origin of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity? The issue goes back to 325 when at the Council of Nicaea the Catholic prelates decided that Jesus Christ and God the Father were coequal in power and authority. Half a century later, in 381 A.D., at the Council of Constantinople, the leaders of the church determined that the Holy Spirit was a third member of the Godhead, possessing the same attributes of power and authority within the Divinity. This doctrine was further developed both by Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas. This doctrine was inherited by the majority of Christian denominations that emerged over time following the Protestant Reformation led by Marin Luther.

No major challenge to the doctrine developed that elapsed between its inception and the centuries that followed. Nevertheless, some theologians began to question the adequacy of the traditional understanding of the Trinity, arguing that it was rather remote from biblical witness and events of salvation history [1]. This led the way for the setting aside the classical Augustinian-Thomistic synthesis of the mystery of the Trinity [2]. A new understanding developed based on the biblical teaching that man was created in the image of God.

The Trinity and Latin American Liberation Theology. The new understanding of the Trinity is rooted in the Vatican II call for an emphasis on the spiritual and physical need of the disenfranchised and the poor. This prompted Latin American theologians to a fresh look at Scripture and the Christian theological tradition with new eyes [3], which compelled them to attend to the experience of appalling oppression of the masses of the poor [4]. Gustavo Gutierrez, in his book A Theology of Liberation, reminded his readers that Jesus himself, born into a situation of poverty, living in solidarity with the poor, and proclaiming the news to them [5], directed his mission of mercy mainly towards the outcast and downtrodden.

Brazilian liberation theologian Leonardo Boff further developed the new understanding of the Trinity by asserting that the triune God is a community of equals [6], which means that the concept of the monarchy of the Father is particularly problematic [7]. If human beings were created in the image of God, and if the triune God is a community of equals, then it follows that human beings must also be a community of equals, ant that all totalitarian structures that have been so oppressive and exploitative of the poor [8] must be abolished. The church, therefore, must strive for the emancipation of the disenfranchised and encourage the replacement of the domination model by one based on communion, participation, and equality; with the objective of building a society that is in the image and likeness of the Trinity [9].

According to this new view of the Trinity, capitalism, socialism, individualism, and even the church hierarchical structure fail to achieve the above-described objective. The Trinitarian vision produces a vision of a church that is more communion than hierarchy, more service than power, more circular than pyramidal, more loving embrace than bending the knee before authority [10]. Under this new vision, all discriminatory policies including the Latin American machismo are condemned for the simple reason that Trinitarian faith is not just an issue of orthodoxy but of orthopraxis [11]. This implies that there must be shared participation and responsibility without subordination or marginalization [12].

Understood in this way, the Trinitarian doctrine is good news for the poor who have been marginalized by both the society and the church with their concentration of power in the hands of a few [13], and their social and political structures based on authoritarianism, paternalism, and patriarchalism—those very structures which have oppressed the poor throughout history [14]. It is also good news for the poor because thanks to Jesus incarnation they have been adopted by God the Father, for which reason the Lord referred to God as my Father and your Father [15]. The poor are no longer orphans, but rather children of the Most High.

Problem One: The Justification of Violence. There are many problems connected with the theology of liberation doctrine. I will limit myself to only three. The first one is the justification of violence. In spite of the influence of liberation theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff, many Catholic theologians, including the current Pope, expressed serious reservations about the practical application of this new doctrine. One of them was Bishop Hoyos, who denounced liberation theologians, saying: "When I see a church with a machine gun, I cannot see the crucified Christ in that church. We can never use hate as a system of change. The core of being a church is love …" [16]

The use of violence has been one of the most controversial aspects of liberation theology. Such violence is not considered sinful if it is used for resisting oppression. Indeed, certain liberation theologians "will in some cases regard a particular action (e.g., killing) as sin if it is committed by an oppressor, but not if it is committed by the oppressed in the struggle to remove inequities. The removal of inequities is believed to result in the removal of the occasion of sin [i.e., the oppressor] as well …” [17] This line of reasoning blurs the line between the role of the church and that of the state.

By the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the theocratic model for the governance of society had been abused so much, that the Lord perceived the wisdom of separating the church from the state, when he pronounced the following dictum: Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God [18]. And when Peter drew his sword and cut the ear of the Priest’s servant, Jesus objected: Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will perish by the sword [19]. This dichotomy was recognized by Paul who said that the government is God’s servant and does not carry the sword in vain [20]. Said dichotomy was never adopted by Moslems. For them the church and the state are united like conjoined twins.

Under the Old Testament theocratic system, violence was the preferred means of liberation. This is quite evident in the life of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Gideon, Samson, David and others; and freedom of the oppressed was quite often achieved in a relatively short time. Victory was the result of either God’s miraculous intervention, or else the wise strategy of the military planners, under the Lords direction. Jesus put an end to this anachronistic system by delegating the physical sword to the state and the sword of the spirit to the church. The church had still to play a role in the liberation of the masses, but the emphasis was a spiritual one, and the results were much slower in materializing. It took three centuries for the church to be freed from the threat of martyrdom, and two millennia for the liberation of the slaves.

Problem Two: The Rejection of the Hierarchical Model. The second problem is that, if allowed to flourish without restraint, its ultimate expression would climax in the destruction of the hierarchical foundation of the Catholic organization. If the church becomes a community of equals, then the primacy of bishops and popes would cease to exist, and chaos would eventually prevail. Lay people would have the same right to rule on dogma and rituals as the highest authority of the church. There is no way the Catholic hierarchy would agree to the dissolution of what it took centuries to build. It would be equivalent to demolishing the Sistine Chapel. No Pope would participate in the suicidal mission of destroying the church.

Liberation Theology is such a threat to the Vatican because if you extrapolated it to its ultimate conclusion, followers would end up having to “liberate” themselves from the outside artificial authority of the Vatican. This is why Ratzinger as leader of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Inquisition) was always so adamant against LT: because if embraced, it would ultimately unravel the church [21].

The utopic dogma of a community of equals sounds very good on paper, but in actual practice is a recipe for disaster and chaos. It doesn’t work on planet earth, neither does it work in heaven: Jesus recognized the fact that he was subject to the authority of God the Father. This was acknowledged by the Apostle Paul who stated: Then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all [22]. On the human level, if I were to presume to give orders to the military in Iraq, no one would mind my orders. If I were to sign a bill originated in Congress, it would never become U.S. law. The rule of law and order requires that a carefully prescribed hierarchical system be followed to prevent anarchy and chaos. The same principle applies to the church.

Problem Three: The Shaky Foundation of the Trinity Doctrine. And now we are ready for strike three: The Trinity doctrine rests on a shaky foundation, and it fails to support the weight of its claims. The gap between the philosophical pronouncement of the church and what the Bible teaches reveals a huge chasm which theologians have been unable to bridge. You can read the Bible from Genesis through Revelation and you will not find any reference to the Trinity, neither will you find any statement describing the Holy Spirit as the coequal third member of the Godhead. God is the only being in the universe entitled to worship, but we find no reference to the worship of the Holy Ghost in the Bible.

We have plenty of biblical reference to the worship of God. Likewise, we find instances where Jesus did accept the worship of his followers. Can you cite a single reference of worship rendered to the Holy Spirit? The Bible states that the Lord makes his angels ministering spirits[23], but when John attempted to worship Angel Gabriel, he warned him to refrain from doing so [24]. St. Peter told us that biblical prophecy came through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but when we check the two most outstanding prophetic books of the Bible, we discover that the chain of revelation was: God-->Angel Gabriel-->God’s prophet [25]. No reference to the Holy Spirit. How can we explain this? Was Peter mistaken in attributing biblical revelation to the Holy Spirit when the actual instrument used by God was the Angel Gabriel? In order to solve this dilemma, we need to examine the alleged biblical basis for this dogma we inherited from the Catholic Church.

Examining the Theological Argument in favor of the Trinity. You probably remember that two weeks ago our teacher Richard Rice cited the following passage in support of the doctrine of the Trinity: Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, …you have lied to the Holy Spirit … You have not lied to men but to God [26]. At first glance, this seems to prove that the Holy Spirit is identified with God. If this is so, then we can perhaps conclude that the Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead, and bingo, we have established the doctrine of the Trinity. Nevertheless there is one problem, because, using the same logic, I believe we could also conclude that the members of the Godhead are not three, but rather four. Look at the following passages:

*The angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within the bush …God called him from within the bush … [27]

*He [Moses] was in the assembly in the desert, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai … [28]

*Manoa realized that it was the angel of the Lord. ‘We are doomed to die!’ he said to his wife. ‘We have seen God!’ … The woman gave birth to a boy and named him Samson … and the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him … [29]

*As a man [Jacob] struggled with God. He struggled with the angel and overcame him [30].

*And when Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the Lord, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God [31].

If we use the N.T. statement cited above as proof that the Holy spirit is the third member of the godhead, then for the sake of consistency, we should use these four O.T. references to establish the irrefutable fact that the angel of the Lord, is the fourth member of the Godhead, which means that what we have is not a heavenly Trio but rather a heavenly Quartet.

The other argument used by Dr. Richard Rice was the threefold baptismal formula: In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [32]. The problem is that some manuscripts do not have this tripartite formula, and there is a theory that this passage was edited after the Council of Constantinople adopted the Trinity dogma. All this leads me to wonder whether the original SDA pioneers were right in denouncing the Trinity doctrine as unscriptural [33].

Then we have the argument related to the unpardonable sin. Those who defend the Trinity doctrine, argue that the following text supports their position: Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven … [34] The argument sounds very logical, but it has two problems: First, taken at face value it seems to increase the authority and dignity of the Holy Spirit and diminish that of Jesus Christ. Second, we have a similar assertion about the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament: I am sending an angel ahead of you … Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my name is in him [35]. If we use the N.T. reference to establish the trinity, then for the sake of consistency, we need to use this O.T. statement to include the angel of the Lord as the fourth member of the Godhead.

A Modest Proposal. There is one thing we can state without fear of being in error: The Holy Spirit is the power of god manifested through a large variety of spiritual means, including angels, archangels, and God himself. This is why Jesus last words were: You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses [36]. If we carefully examine the many references of the manifestations of this Divine power, we will discover that whenever this power assumed human form, it was described as the Angel of the Lord, but if the manifestation of divine power was not visible, then it was described as the Spirit of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost. Anytime we go beyond these limitations, we are treading on shaky ground. As a church, we need to rethink our teachings on this topic. Perhaps the early pioneers were right after all in labeling the Trinity as unscriptural.

Given the above described problems surrounding the dogma of the Trinity that we inherited from the Catholic Church, I have the following suggestion to make: A. Let us be humble and recognize that there is insufficient biblical evidence for what we learned from systematic theologians. B. Let us remember that systematic theology is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy can help us understand and organize our knowledge about religious beliefs, but our fundamental beliefs should be firmly rooted in what the Lord has clearly revealed in Scripture. We should not label philosophical speculation as church mandated doctrine or fundamental Belief.

C. Finally, let us delete the doctrine of the Trinity from our list of Fundamental Beliefs, let us rewrite the one dealing with the Holy Spirit to fit what we can unequivocally defend without resorting to philosophical speculation, and let us delete the one related to the Sanctuary—which is negated in the book of Hebrews; and in order to preserve the sacredness of the number 27—which has served us well for many years, let us fill the gap with one that is definitely biblical: The sacredness of human life.

Conclusion. Last Sabbath in his sermon, Lowell Cooper, the General Vice President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, reminded us that there are issues of much greater relevance than how old is dirt, and whether the Trinity doctrine is biblical. Jesus could have solved these enigmas for us when he was approaching Jerusalem, before his impending death. He had no time for this, but he did stop to heal Blind Bartimeus. I would add that he also had plenty of time for children. He actually rebuked his disciples when he said: Let the children come to me and forbid them not [37]. My question to you is: How can the children come to him if we either poison, dismember, or vacuum their brains even when they are in the process of being born? If we as a church ignore this issue, all our doctrinal pronouncements become irrelevant, and sooner or later we will have to apologize for neglecting what is really fundamental: respect for human life. That is exactly what the German and Austrian SDA leaders did recently regarding our failure to protest the Nazi genocide of the Jews.

*********
1. Anne Hunt, The Trinity, p. 3.
2. Id. P. 6.
3. Ibid. p. 8.
4. Ibid. p. 9
5. Ibid. p. 9.
6. Ibid. p. 10.
7. Ibid. p. 10.
8. Ibid. p. 10.
9. Ibid. p. 13.
10. Ibid. P. 15.
11. Ibid. p. 16.
12. Ibid. p. 16
13. Ibid. p. 17.
14. Ibid. p. 17.
15. John 20:17.
16. http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Liberation.html
17. Id.
18. Matthew 22: 21.
19. Matthew 26:52.
20. Romans 13:4.
21. http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/04/19/why-the-vatican-hates-liberation-theology/
22. 1 Corinthians 15:28.
23. Hebrews 1: 14.
24. Revelation 19:10.
25. Daniel 8:16;Revelation 1:1.
26. Acts 5:3 & 4.
27. Exodus 3:3 & 4.
28. Acts 7: 38.
29. Judges 13: 21, 22, 24 & 25.
30. Hoshea 12:3 &4.
31. Judges 6:22.
32. Matthew 28:19.
33. Joseph Bates and James White.
34. Matthew 12:32.
35. Exodus 23:20 & 21.
36. Acts 1:8.
37. Matthew 19:14. 

Free Mailing List Club!

 

If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.