Speaker 1
Ye, that's a really good question. Thank you. Sam. So i suppose it depends on how one thinks you get the doctrine of the trinity and its from the bible, or what its relation to the bible is. My own view, contrary to some, is that you're not going to get it deductively. There. You'll look at certain texts, and some people think you just take them and you deduce falla, you've got the doctrine in the way thatis supposed be accepted. A post nicea. I given that after thin from three, 83, 81, with the nicene creed, there's there's language that's in some sense extra biblical, consubstantial, homousios. And it's not clear that any new testament or old testament author authors, editors, redactors, whoever, would have had that specific concept in mind. I personally think itit's very hard to deduce the doctrine of the trinity from scripture. That's said, you might think, well, you could do it with regard to inference, to the best explanation. So scripture, at least for me, is the primary data, the primary source of our revelation from god. And there 're a lot of things that i think, if you're just going to take jesus as as merely human, it sits uncomfortably. Now, of course, there are unitarians who think of jesus as merely human, who try to interpret these passages and say, there's no problem. But again, no surprise. My own view is it doesn't fit very well. Wers n if we take it in a trinitarian way, i post nice a trinitarian way, that there's a natural fit, there's a kind of would expect the kinds of things that jesus does, if we take jesus to be god a certain extent. So when wee look at scripture, so, i mean, i'm with those who think theres there's no one clean cut proof text. I know some people want to jump there, like, john, chapter one, verse one. Isn't that clear proof text. But if you actually look deeperad you want to do, see what john is doing and be a good, do good hermanutic and biblical exgesus, it's one would be hard pressed to get the doctrine of the trinity post nicea from that particular verse. But when we look at a lot of what scripture is doing and the way that its portraying jesus, and the way that people had seen jesus after the resurrection and the ascension, i think it fits best with a triniti traditional trinitarian view. So the ways in which christ is allowing himself to be worshipped. I think what fits best with that of the kind of language that paul uses. While he doesn't have the categories, post micene categories, the kinds of language that paul uses, i think fits best, so to speak. Doesn't that there's not a possible interpretation that's non trinitarian for what paul says. Paul, in my own view, isn't trinitarian in the post nicene sense, because how could he be? But the kind of language and concepts that paul's employing, i think there's a nice natural fit once you have that trinitarian framework and you start reading it. Am. I also think the way that t the god of israel, is described as what the god of israel is going to be doing, especially in the prophets. And then we are surprised to see that christ fulfils those prophecies. He lives them out. Heis doing what the god of israel said that the god of israel is going to do. And so again, that seems, again, i don't think you can deduce that jesus is divine, but think that that evidence fits well with a traditional trinitarian framework. Right?