Critique of Social Trinitarianism

Recently, Blake Ostler got me thinking about social trinitarianism.

A Christian brother just emailed me today this critique.  Michael Rea has been thinking other thoughts in regards to the social trinitarian paradigm.

Here I am posting a paper, sourced from the University of Notre Dame.  What is Brad going to think of me over at Defensor Veritatis?

I must say, though, the paper was very interesting.

11 comments

  3. I read the second article and I have three questions:
    How is social trinitarianism different from what Mormons believe?
    How is their final solution (the statue-lump) neither social trinitarianism or modalism (it seems like a conflation of the two)?
    and finally
    How is social trinitarianism not a form of polytheism (or henotheism or moonlatry)?

  4. John C., I am very uncomfortable with social trinitarianism in most of the ways it is expressed.

    These are good questions. I will email Michael Rea. Maybe he can pop on here and comment for a moment.

  5. John C.,

    I would seriously recommend that you purchase and read Blake Ostler’s first and third volumes of Exploring Mormon Thought. (Actually, I think the third isn’t out yet.) At any rate, he discusses LDS thought on “God” from the analytical philosophical perspective in the first volume, engaging and critiquing classical theism in depth. Further, he discusses Social Trinitarianism from and LDS perspective as well. In his third volume (from what I understand) he explores ST even more, but rejects ultimately rejects it. This is what he says regarding volume three:

    “…In chapter 4 I review the New Testament teachings related to the relation of the Father and the Son. I show that the earliest Christians (including prominently Paul) search out Old Testament and pseudepigraphical proof texts showing two distinct divine beings, the only true God and a vizier second only to God who receives God’s name and glory and appears as God himself. In chapter 5 I review the relation of the Logos and the only true God, the Father. John also taught of two quite distinct divine beings.

    In chapter 6 I transition to an analysis of Latin Trinitarianism (”LT”) and the claims of the creeds. I conclude that the creeds really resolve very little because they are vague. I also conclude that LT is either modalistic or hopelessly incoherent. I then review Social Trinitarianism (”ST”) in chapter 7 and conclude that it is scripturally and logically superior to LT. However, ST cannot maintain real relations of love and it is thus deficient.

    In chapter 8 I present an LDS view of the Godhead and defend it. In chapter 9 I then review what I believe are the chief philosophical challenges to the LDS Godhead.”

    See here for further information on his forthcoming book:

    http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/09/how-many-gods-are-there/447/

  6. I suppose what I am getting at is that most of the Evangelicals I have talked with are modalists. For that matter, I don’t think any of them care that they are, in that sense, heretics. If social trinitarianism is a better fit for what they believe, why do they find LDS beliefs about God disturbing?

  7. More good questions and fundamental heart issues for evangelicals.

    My perspective: Evangelicals in America had better start studying their Bibles to find out what the text says about God.

  8. The Yellow Dart,

    We meet again friend. What color should my dart be?

    I am hoping to talk to 100 people in the neighborhoods before Christmas. Here is one of my questions, “When John 6 says that Jesus came out of heaven . . . does this phrase imply that he is God?”

    Merry Christmas.

    And don’t drink too much eggnog.

  9. Todd,

    My name is actually a joke from an online show where the main character, Strong Bad, gives advice to a person who had asked him how to get an “A” on his school paper. In response, one of his tips was to make a “cool name” and so he said to sign it with something like:

    Todd “The Yellow Dart” Wood.

    I guess you can pick whatever color you like. Red is my favorite color.

    As for your question, I think John clearly implies Jesus’ divinity. For instance:

    “en arche En ho logos, kai ho logos En pros ton theon, kai theos En ho logos” (Jn.1.1), as well as other “ego eimi” statements, especially Jn. 8.58.

    However, these statements clearly don’t support Latin Trinitarianism from the 4th century and must be read in the context of the entire book (for instance, Jn 14.28, 17.3, 5 and 20-23, 12.44-50), as well as the historical era from which it came.

  11. There r those who condemn the lds church as heretic , I think its closer to original Christianity than the Roman based Churches.

    There is a related debate on theology between Rastafarians and Christian ew Rastafari at:

    Messian Dread: Rasfafari V. the Pagan Cult

Leave a comment