Bavinck on the Trinity

"The moment monotheism is not supported by the doctrine of the Trinity, it risks losing its purity, being threatened by pantheism or monism, on the one hand, and by polytheism and pluralism, on the other." Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2. God and Creation J. Bolt, ed. ; J. Vriend, trans. (Baker Academic, 2004), 119.

A great insight. Without the doctrine of the Trinity the pressure for unity will force us to include all things in God, or the pressure for diversity will lead us to splinter our idea of God. Only the doctrine of the Trinity allows a view of God who is both the transcendent and immanent Creator, the source of both unity and diversity.

Blogging the Confession 8 - Triune God

The doctrine of the Trinity is probably the most significant and distinctive Christian doctrine (the only other nomination would be Christology, but the two are so closely related). When the Westminster Assembly came to address the Trinity it had nothing new to say. The Reformation had affirmed the doctrine of ecumenical councils. (John Calvin does seem to have had a subtly different way of approaching the doctrine focussing on the persons in unity rather than God’s essence – that is reflected in the Confession).

However the doctrine of the Trinity did seem to be under pressure in the 1640’s in London. The movement was called “Socinianism” after Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) a radical theologian Italian who ended up in Poland. He subjected Christian theological tradition to a rational  and biblicistic critique rejecting the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the imputation of sin or righteousness, original sin, predestination, real or spiritual presence in Lord’s Supper. This was summarised in the Racovinian Cathechism (1605). This stream of thought was present in 17th C. England though it is hard to trace the relationship with

Socinus.  Certainly accusations of and warnings about Socinianism were  common in 17th C theological rhetoric. For a  well-informed positive assessment of Socinianism see here. His picture is right.

 So the Assembly made sure that it affirmed that there are three persons in the one God and each is fully God. It differentiates persons by internal relations following the Western tradition: the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. It is a succinct statement of classical orthodoxy, using the classic language  ‘persons’ and substance (i.e.  substantia.)

 John Murray commented on this section that “its brevity is striking and its simplicity is matched only by its brevity. Both surprise and gratification are evoked by the restraint in defining the distinguishing properties of the persons of the Godhead … Later generations lie under a great debt to Westminster for the studied reserve which saved the Confession from being burdened with such speculative notions as commended themselves to theologians … but to which the Scripture did not lend support.”  (“The theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith” Scripture and Confession  P&R, 1973, 132).

Trinity in the OT?

A student has emailed to ask whether the plural references to God as "us" in the OT can safely be taken as trinitarian references.

I don't think there is any single verse in the OT OR IN THE NT we can point to as in itself "safely" capable of being read as teaching the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe that from Gen 1:1 the references to God are to our Trinitarian God, but I can only say this on the basis of a theological construct, putting together the whole of Biblical teaching and the benefit of Church reflection for hundreds of years. The "us" references used of God, e.g. in Gen 1:26 and 11:9, can hardly be taken as proof of a Trinitarian understanding of God within OT times. That would be anachronistic. These plurals are better taken, I believe, as referring to God portrayed as deliberating in the presence of his heavenly court, letting them into his counsels.