Critiquing: #019 Doctrine questions about the Trinity and Baptism
July 30, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier
Trinity Doctrine — Baptism Debate — Historical Jesus — Early Church Practices — Biblical Interpretation
Episode Assessment:
| Metric | ——— | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of Accuracy | B | The content is largely accurate, drawing on established theological and historical scholarship. |
| Degree of Coherence | B- | Logical structure is maintained, though some arguments could be presented more systematically. |
| Absence of Fallacies | C+ | There are a few potential logical fallacies, such as appeals to tradition without substantial evidence. |
| Degree of Evidence | B | Arguments are supported with references to biblical texts and historical contexts. |
| Degree of Testability | C | Some claims are difficult to test empirically, especially theological assertions. |
| Rational Confidence | C+ | The confidence in the presented arguments aligns moderately well with the evidence provided. |
Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:
1. Absence of Fallacies:
Some parts of the discussion rely heavily on traditional views without robust justification. For instance, the assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity is evident in the New Testament, albeit not in philosophical terms, could benefit from more direct biblical evidence.
“What the third and fourth and fifth-century fathers expressed in terms of Trinity is expressed in the New Testament very clearly, but not in that philosophical formulation.”
2. Degree of Testability:
Theological claims, such as the nature of the Trinity or the efficacy of baptism, are inherently difficult to test empirically. The reliance on historical and traditional interpretations can make these claims more subjective.
“It seems to me that anyone who turns to God who simply, whether they kneel down or stand up or whatever, and says to God, ‘Lord, I am a mess. Sorry about that. Please forgive me because of Jesus.’ I want to say that person receives forgiveness right then and there.”
Syllogistic Formulation of Major Arguments:
1. The Necessity of the Trinity for Christian Orthodoxy
- Premise 1: The New Testament implicitly supports the concept of the Trinity.
- Premise 2: Early church fathers formalized the doctrine of the Trinity.
- Hidden Premise: Biblical and traditional support for the Trinity implies its necessity for true Christian faith.
- Conclusion: Belief in the Trinity is essential for Christian orthodoxy.
Counter-Argument: The necessity of the Trinity for Christian orthodoxy is not universally accepted. The New Testament does not explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, it reflects diverse understandings of God and Jesus’ nature. Some Christian groups, such as Unitarians, reject the Trinity and still consider themselves adherents of authentic Christian faith. Furthermore, the concept of the Trinity evolved over centuries, influenced by philosophical and theological debates, suggesting it is not a foundational aspect of original Christian doctrine but a later development.
2. The Role of Baptism in Salvation
- Premise 1: Baptism is a practice established by Jesus and continued by his early followers.
- Premise 2: Baptism symbolizes the believer’s entry into a new life in Christ.
- Hidden Premise: Practices established by Jesus and symbolizing new life are necessary for salvation.
- Conclusion: Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Counter-Argument: While baptism is a significant ritual in many Christian traditions, its necessity for salvation is debated. The thief on the cross, who was promised paradise by Jesus, was not baptized, indicating that faith and repentance can suffice for salvation. Additionally, the emphasis on a specific ritual risks overshadowing the broader Christian message of grace and faith. Different denominations interpret baptism’s role variably, from a symbolic act to a requirement, reflecting theological diversity that challenges the notion of its universal necessity for salvation.
3. The Historical Validity of Jesus’ Divinity
- Premise 1: Early Christians worshipped Jesus as divine.
- Premise 2: Worship practices reflect beliefs about divinity.
- Hidden Premise: Historical worship practices validate the divinity of Jesus.
- Conclusion: Jesus’ divinity is historically validated.
Counter-Argument: The historical validity of Jesus’ divinity, based on early worship practices, is contested. Early Christian worship of Jesus does not necessarily confirm his divinity but reflects their high reverence and theological interpretations. Historical records, including non-Christian sources, provide limited evidence of Jesus’ divinity. Instead, they often portray him as a significant religious figure or prophet. The development of Christology over centuries, influenced by various cultural and theological factors, suggests that early worship practices alone are insufficient to conclusively validate Jesus’ divinity.
◉ Addressing the Arguments for the Trinity and Baptism:
The Duct-Taped Doctrines of the Trinity and Baptism
The doctrines of the Trinity and baptism hold central positions in Christian theology. Yet, their formulations seem to emerge not from clear scriptural mandates but from an amalgamation of various biblical texts and later theological interpretations. This essay argues that the doctrines of the Trinity and baptism, central as they are to Christianity, lack explicit scriptural foundation, which has led to numerous and often conflicting interpretations. This raises significant questions about the nature of the Bible and the intentions of a God who purportedly seeks to convey unequivocal truth to humanity.
The Doctrine of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity, which posits that God exists as three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is considered a cornerstone of Christian orthodoxy. However, this concept is not plainly stated in the Bible. Instead, it has been inferred from a series of disparate scriptures. Key passages often cited include the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs his disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and the prologue of John’s Gospel, which speaks of the Word being with God and being God (John 1:1).
Yet, these passages, among others, do not amount to a systematic doctrine of the Trinity. The development of this doctrine took several centuries, culminating in the formal definitions at the Councils of Nicaea (325 CE) and Constantinople (381 CE). The lack of a clear, cohesive scriptural basis has led to various heresies and schisms, such as Arianism, which denied the full divinity of Jesus, and Modalism, which argued that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons but different modes of the same being. The absence of an explicit trinitarian formulation in the Bible has undoubtedly contributed to these divergent views.
The Doctrine of Baptism
Similarly, the doctrine of baptism, which signifies the washing away of sin and the initiation into the Christian community, is pieced together from various New Testament passages. For example, Acts 2:38 associates baptism with repentance and the forgiveness of sins, while Romans 6:3-4 links it to dying and rising with Christ. Despite these references, there is no single scriptural passage that comprehensively outlines the theological significance and proper mode of baptism.
This lack of clarity has resulted in significant theological diversity and debate. Some Christian traditions, such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, practice infant baptism, believing it imparts grace and removes original sin. In contrast, many Protestant denominations, particularly Baptists, advocate for believer’s baptism, arguing that baptism should follow an individual’s profession of faith. The disagreements over whether baptism should be by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling further illustrate the doctrinal confusion stemming from the lack of a definitive scriptural mandate.
The Implications of Scriptural Ambiguity
The absence of clear scriptural formulations for these central doctrines raises profound questions about the nature of the Bible and the intentions of a God who purportedly desires humans to come to the unequivocal truth. If these doctrines are essential for salvation and proper worship, why are they not clearly articulated in the scriptures? The doctrinal confusion and division among Christians suggest that the Bible’s ambiguity on these matters has significant consequences.
One possible explanation is that the Bible is a human product, reflecting the diverse theological perspectives and historical contexts of its authors. This would account for the fragmented and sometimes contradictory nature of its teachings on the Trinity and baptism. Alternatively, if one assumes the Bible is divinely inspired, one might question why God would choose to communicate such crucial doctrines in a manner that is not straightforward, leading to centuries of theological disputes.
Conclusion
The doctrines of the Trinity and baptism, despite their centrality to Christian faith, are derived from an array of disparate scriptures rather than clear biblical mandates. This has led to a wide range of interpretations and practices within Christianity, challenging the notion that the Bible provides an unequivocal foundation for these beliefs. The scriptural ambiguity surrounding these doctrines raises important questions about the nature of divine revelation and the intentions of a God who seeks to guide humanity to truth. As such, the chances that the vague Bible is a product of an actual God who wants humans to come to unequivocal truth appear uncertain at best.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment