Borderline Heresy/Doctrinal Overview
Doctrinal Overview
edit
My main contention with the Trinity is rooted in its interpretation of the relationship between Father and Son. The Trinitarian interpretation holds that the Father/Son relationship is an anthropomorphic relationship that is best conveyed through the use of father/son terminology. My interpretation, however, is that the Father/Son relationship is an image-bearing relationship in which God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is His image-bearer/Son.
Consider the provided diagrams. In the left-hand setting - the Trinitarian viewpoint - the Father and Son are two divine entities within the Godhead. As mentioned previously, the relationship is anthropomorphic, acting similar to the parent/child relationships that we see in everyday life, but certainly not equivalent. The parent/child terminology is simply a metaphor, rather than an conveyance of an actual father/son relationship.
The right-hand setting – my viewpoint – reflects a very different structure. Instead of an anthropomorphic relationship internal to the Godhead, we find an image-bearing relationship external to the Godhead, in which God (as a whole) is the Father, and Jesus Christ is His image-bearing Son.
Now notice, this setup doesn't in any way compromise or alter the doctrine of Christ; He is still fully divine, and fully human. The only thing that has changed in that respect is terminology; instead of Christ being indwelt by The Son/The Word, The Son/Christ is indwelt by the Word
Multiple Children
edit
Now the exegetical benefits of my viewpoint may not be readily obvious. One area of doctrine which is duly enhanced is the concept of God having multiple children. Various passages of scripture attest that believers are adopted by God, and are thus His children. Similarly, Adam was considered a son of God, at least upon creation. Hence we know that Christ isn't the only son of God known to scripture.
How do these other children of God fit into the picture? If we assume the Trinity's accuracy, then I see two possible solutions – either they are anthropomorphic “children” within the Trinity, as the Son allegedly is, or they are image-bearing children without the Trinity, as the Son allegedly is not.
In the former case, all children of God would be divine, and the Trinity would have far more Persons than three. Setting aside the logical complications of making created beings a part of the Godhead, there is nothing in scripture to suggest that we attain Godhood upon salvation (or even upon glorification). However, this viewpoint does satisfy scripture that refers to us as Christ's brethren, because our relationship to the Father is comparable to Christ's
The latter suggestion is much more palatable, not to mention scriptural. Christ's Sonship is anthropomorphic, in which the divine Word acts as a Son toward His Father. God's other children, on the other hand, have image-bearing relationships with God as a whole. The problem with this solution however, is that there is a disconnect between Christ's Sonship and the believer's, when scripture seems to indicate that there shouldn't be.
I suggest, therefore, that the Trinity is unable to adequately account for scripture that parallels Christ's Sonship with that of the believer's. My viewpoint, on the other hand, does adequately account for this phenomenon. Because Christ's Sonship is an image-bearing relationship external to the Godhead, it can interact with the believer's sonship within the context of family. Because believers are sons of God, and He is quite literally the Son of God, He is able to call us brothers.
Inheritance
edit
The concept of inheritance in scripture is another area of doctrine that is significantly helped by my viewpoint. We know from scripture that