Three in One, One in Three, Huh?

I have been doing some reading recently about the Trinity. In its most general sense, the Trinity is a theological doctrine that says that the Father (God), the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are all different, yet the same. No, there weren't any typos in that last sentence. They are three faces of what has been referred to as the "Godhead". They are eternal and were not created. They have always existed.

During the development of the early Church, the relationship between God and Jesus was hotly debated. One group, led by a man named Arius, held that God was eternal, but Jesus was not. God created Jesus and was therefore superior to him. This view is called Arianism. In the 330s A.D., the pope called a council that was held at Nicea. One of the issues the various church fathers discussed was this relationship between God and Jesus. After debating the matter for a while, the council voted (yes, VOTED) to see which view would be considered orthodox. By an overwhelming majority, the so-called Trinitarians prevailed. To this day, modern Christianity is overwhelmingly Trinitarian. However, this took a while. There were two post-Nicea Roman Emperors who were Arians. Even after the Roman Empire embraced Trinitarianism as orthodox, most of the so-called "barbarians" (those Christians living outside the boundaries of the empire) were still Arians. It wasn't until the 8th or 9th century that Arianism really began to die out.

In the 17th century, one of the great minds in human history, determined that Arianism was the "true" form of Christianity. Isaac Newton was not only one of the foremost scientists ever, but he was also very well-versed in theology. He spent far more time in his life studying the Bible and theological issues than he did doing experiments and writing about them. Almost none of his theological writings were published until well after his death. If they had been, he would have become a pariah in European culture and would not have been able to produce his scientific theories. Newton determined that some of the main Biblical passages supporting Trinitiarianism were actually fraudulent.

Frankly, I don't see what all of the fuss is about. From what I have read, there are Biblical passages supporting each position. Trinitiarianism became orthodox via popular vote almost seventeen centuries ago. Yet, a man with the capacities of Newton did his own research and reached a different decision. While it strikes me as odd, I'm not necessarily against a democratic approach to determining what should be considered "orthodox", and I'm not saying that the Arian view is correct simply because Newton took that position. I simply don't see why everyone cares so much. Does it change the basic message of Christianity? Does it really matter what the essential essence of Jesus is? Does it matter if there is a hierarchy between God and Son? It seems to me to be much like arguing over the color of the table cloth at the Last Supper.

Authority and the "Truth"

I have been giving a lot of thought lately to how we "know" things. I guess it is more accurate to talk about what we THINK is "true". We can have a subjective belief that we "know" something and still be wrong.

I would be curious to know what % of our information is derived from sources beyond our own personal observations. The information that most of us obtain through personal experience is fairly limited. This is especially true when we consider what we learn about various ideas during our education. For example, I have been taught that the earth orbits the sun, but I'm not sure I would even know how to begin to go out and prove that for myself. I still accept that as "truth".

Why?

We learn quite a bit from those considered "authorities". How does one get to be an "authority"? Typically, one becomes an "authority" because others say it is so. Again, we are acquiring this information from an outside source. The "logic train" runs in two directions. First, we can say that "X says R is true, and X is an authority, so the likelihood is that R is, in fact, true." Or we can go in the opposite direction. We can say "X has said A, B, and C. A, B, and C, either through my own observations or through the opinions of others, appear to be true. Therefore, X must be an authority."

Things get really tricky when X says "I am an authority". How does one evaluate that? You could listen to J, K and L, who might also say X is an authority, but then you are just substituting their opinion for X's. Things get even trickier when X says "I am an authority, and I say Z is true." If I can't determine independently that Z is true, what am I supposed to do?

This last example is (albeit in an oversimplified state, perhaps) the Bible. The Bible proclaims itself to be the "authority". It is "the word of God". It also says that God is omnipotent and beyond error. If we decide that God is omnipotent and that the Bible is the "word of God", then we can reach no other conclusion except that "the Bible is the authority". The problem, from a purely logical standpoint, is that God and the Bible prop each other up in what is essentially an exercise in circular reasoning. The Bible says God is omnipotent. The Bible says God is beyond error. The Bible says that the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, we must believe what is in the Bible because it was created by an omnipotent, error-free God. In a sense, they begat (to use a good Bible word) one another. Again, purely from the perspective of logic, that is cheating.

I don't intend this to be an attack on the Bible or on God. If you have read any of my other blog entries, you will appreciate the fact that I am a question asker. I am a searcher. The quest for understanding, to me anyway, is just that. A quest. I don't think we are ever supposed to get done. Humility and a realization of our own limitations empower us to say "I don't know" so we can keep looking.