To the untrained eye Christian theology appears to border on nonsense. For example, Christians believe that the one God is three persons, each of whom is also God. You do the math. The questions are well rehearsed. Is Christianity illogical? Do Christians believe bald-faced contradictions? Did the church just invent these bizarre doctrines arbitrarily? Surely logic warrants skepticism.
Not so fast. As a Christian, I fully affirm that contradictions are false. If a skeptic brings out contradictions in my beliefs, I’ll modify or abandon them. What I won’t do, however, is crumble under an alleged contradiction. I want to know precisely what the problem is. So let’s talk about the Trinity. Why did the church spend centuries trying to articulate this admittedly complex doctrine?
The backstory
It starts with first century Palestinian Judaism. In that context, Jesus and his followers believed that there was only one God and would worship none other.[1] However, there is strong evidence that early Jewish believers nevertheless worshipped Jesus. For example, “the oldest Christian sermon, the oldest account of a Christian martyr, the oldest pagan report of the church, and the oldest liturgical prayer (1 Cor 16:22) all refer to [Jesus] Christ as Lord and God.”[2]
How could faithful Jews worship Jesus without blaspheming their God? It’s important to realize that Jesus’ followers weren’t thinking about God in terms of omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. They knew who God was better perhaps than what God is.[3] Indeed, their God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who led them out of Egypt and slavery, etc.
They had simple tools to differentiate God from the rest of reality.[4] When they applied these tools to Jesus, they recognized him as the God of Israel. For example, Jesus asserted divine authority by forgiving sins, adjusting the God-given Law, and performing miracles over nature.[5] These functions, among others, were understood as unique to their God. Indeed, Jesus was ultimately condemned to death for putting himself in God’s place.
Tacit knowledge
By recognized Jesus’ divinity and worshipping him, the early church faced a problem. How could they worship Jesus “with the worship due only to God”?[6] Furthermore, Jesus clearly was not the same person as the Father (to whom he prayed). To make a long story short,[7] the question was, how could Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father each be fully God yet together count as one God?[8]
Although Paul was aware of this problem, the only book in the Bible that begins to solve it is John’s gospel.[9] Were early Christians irrational to worship Jesus as God while still intending to remain faithful to the God of Israel? It would seem that the early church had “tacit knowledge” of the Trinity and were only later able to articulate their beliefs precisely.[10] One can know a truth without being able to explain it. Indeed, if “knowledge were confined to what could be explained, it would be impossible to search for fresh knowledge.”[11]
A coherent model
What about today? Is the Trinity a coherent doctrine? Put on your thinking hat! Philosophers J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig present a coherent model in their Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. They suggest that the Trinity is the only instance of the divine nature—i.e. there’s only one God. That’s because being triune is part of the divine nature.[12]
Now, God the Father, for example, is not identical to the Trinity because he himself is not a Trinity.[13] Rather, the Father is a part of (or a person within) the Trinity. To say that the Father is God, then, means that the Father is divine by virtue of his membership in the Trinity.[14] The same can be said for the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we can easily say that there is one God in three distinct persons, each of whom is divine. No contradiction there.
The last issue is to check whether this is heretical. Moreland and Craig’s proposal requires that each member be a part of the Trinity (rather than the whole). They claim, “Nothing in Scripture warrants us in thinking that … each person of the Trinity is identical to the whole Trinity.”[15] Nevertheless, they admit that their model conflicts with the Eleventh Council of Toledo (A.D. 675) and the Fourth Lateran Council, suggesting that those councils wrongly emphasize a controversial doctrine of divine simplicity.[16]
But I’m sure the skeptic won’t mind if we break with tradition on this issue. After all, it’s in the name of logic. To summarize, the lesson here is that articulating beliefs takes time—perhaps even centuries. Learning how to express one’s tacit beliefs requires logic and patience. Christian beliefs are no different. At the end of the day, logic is the friend of anyone seeking after truth.
[1] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel : God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 2.
[2] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 577.
[3] Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, ix.
[4] They saw in Jesus their unique Creator and “sovereign Ruler” who reveals himself through a “narrative identity,” who “will achieve his eschatological rule,” whose name is YHWH, who “alone may and must be worshipped,” and who “alone is fully eternal.” ibid., 233–234.
[5] Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 576.
[6] Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 150.
[7] When discussing the Holy Spirit, the common approach is to note that “if a second shares the divine nature, there should be no insuperable difficulties in a third doing so, too.” Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub, 2004), 69.
[8] Letham, The Holy Trinity.
[9] Ibid., 69.
[10] Ibid., 54–55.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 590.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., 591.
[15] Ibid., 593.
[16] Ibid., 591.
Originally posted on Cognitive Resonance.
As one with ‘no dog in the hunt’ (a believer with no religious affiliation) I have tried and failed to see evidence of the ‘trinity’ in the Bible. The few scriptures that might hint at that are completely overwhelmed by the examples that refute it. The gospel of John reads like gibberish if you substitute “God” for every term or pronoun that refers to God or Jesus. That should not be the case if they are literally the same being.
Great stuff Ben. I am not an intellectual or an academic so a lot of the discussions are beyond me when it comes to these difficult discussions of the Trinity. I kind of look at it all this way. God is one in essence and it does not violate the law of non-contradiction of God being manifested in three persons. This is two different things. As far as trying to understand the Trinity I think this is a paradox or as the older definition for paradox — “not contradictory but a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but that may actually true in fact”. The Holy Bible contains many paradoxes.It was a favorite of Jesus.
Keep the articles coming Ben. As a retired non-educated I am getting my education from the Apologetic Alliance.
Got bless your good heart.
don
There’s still a host of problems, although I understand this is hardly a comprehensive look at the issue. It’s all well and good to claim that God is tri-une in “nature”, but what is this nature? People generally consider “Godhood” to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, etc. Jesus clearly wasn’t omnipotent (He said He couldn’t work certain miracles because of a lack of faith), wasn’t omniscient (He claimed He didn’t know when He’d be back… but said it’d be before “this generation” died), and He obviously wasn’t omnipresent. One wonders what, exactly could be meant by Jesus being “God”. Just that He was part of the trinity?
And while I get that it is possible to know things that one cannot explain, it must also be considered that if this problem persists, perhaps we don’t know what we think we do. One must especially consider the basis of such claimed knowledge. If it takes centuries to explain such a concept, and there are still councils that contradict it, and laymen find it virtually impossible to explain it without committing a heresy, then perhaps there’s something amiss.
Great comment! In response, I think you’re correct that people generally define God as omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, etc. However, I think this is a modern mistake. Jesus’ contemporaries identified God as the Creator and “sovereign Ruler” who reveals himself through a “narrative
identity,” who “will achieve his eschatological rule,” whose name is
YHWH, who “alone may and must be worshipped,” and who “alone is fully
eternal.” (see note 4 above). This is the sense in which they understood Jesus to be divine, not in terms of omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. As I see it, if any given “omni-definition” renders the Trinity or incarnation impossible, it should be modified or abandoned. These early divine identifiers have priority.
If I understand your second point correctly, you suggest that stubborn failure to explain ought to indicate that “perhaps we don’t know what we think we do.” Perhaps so, but I’m not sure that applies here. Why think, if the Trinity is real, that we’d have a simple explanation of the Trinity by now and no controversy? I can’t see why that would be the case.
I appreciate the willingness to reconsider what “God” means. I would, however, point out that your description of what Jews would have considered “God” to be is indistinguishable from a demiurge – except for the caveat that God is alone in His worthiness to be worshipped. The question is what causes this worthiness. Presumably, a God whose goodness is no better than our own would not have this quality. Presumably, a God who was no mightier than us would not have that quality. Etc. In short, the problem that I see is that while you are correct in that Jews would have seen God as creator, ruler, etc., they would ALSO have seen God as wholly good, all-powerful, etc. Statements to that effect are not hard to come by in the OT.
So, what we would be left with is either abandoning the Trinity as a concept (or redefining it, but I don’t see how it is possible to do so without it becoming polytheism), or redefining “God”. You indicate that we need to consider the Trinity and the Incarnation as the non-negotiables, but I’m not sure you appreciate just how damaging that would be. (Although, to be fair, redefining either at this point becomes at least somewhat damaging to “orthodox” Christianity). For instance, if we say that God isn’t omnipotent, but can only do those things consistent with His nature – in what sense is He omnipotent? Couldn’t we say the same thing? If God isn’t omnipresent, then in what sense is He imminent? If God isn’t omniscient, then how can we trust that He knows what good will become of the evils He has permitted? There are some serious apologetic ramifications to consider just to ensure the validity of a principle that is far more vaguely insinuated (with the exception of the Gospel of John) in scripture than God’s attributes.
And, no, I do not necessarily expect a “simple” or non-controversial explanation of the Trinity. Sometimes truth is complex and hard to understand, certainly. But I would expect there to be at least possible *coherent* explanations that might be complex and controversial. I don’t think we have those, and that is why the vast majority of Christians relegate the Trinity to “divine mystery” status. For instance, I don’t really know which is a better theological explanation of God’s relation to humanity’s free will: Calvinism, Arminianism, or Molinism. But they are all coherent, even if complex and controversial. The fact that we do not even have competing “-isms” of the Trinity, to me, signifies that the concept is, at its core, completely incoherent. We then have to consider whether that is OK given God’s nature (perhaps you conceive of God transcending reason/logic, not being subject to it – like Descartes), or not.
If I understand your second point correctly, you suggest that stubborn failure to explain ought to indicate that “perhaps we don’t know what we think we do.” Perhaps so, but I’m not sure that applies here. Why think, if the Trinity is real, that we’d have a simple explanation of the Trinity by now and no controversy? I can’t see why that would be the case.
These are really interesting points you bring up! I’m not totally spun up on God vs. a demiurge, so I’ll leave that alone, but I do take seriously the possibility that the God of Israel is not necessarily the God of the philosophers, a supreme abstract figure. The God of Israel ‘gets his hands dirty’ in the world that he created and governs and some may be tempted to think less of God as a result.
What causes worthiness of worship? I think philosopher Paul K Moser does an excellent job of describing this. I (following him) take it that we worship God primarily because of his goodness. Such a God exercises God’s power and wisdom under the control of God’s perfect moral character. I suggest that any definition of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. that proves incompatible with God’s essential goodness does not properly describe the God that ancient Israel, and subsequently Christians, have encountered.
So if one defines omnipotence as the power to do anything that is logically possible, and that includes deceit, and deceit is incompatible with God’s perfect moral character, then I say jettison that definition. It doesn’t
describe the God who actually exists and with whom we deal. We meet God first, offer definitions second, evaluate those definitions against God as revealed in
Scripture (and religious experience) third, and revise as necessary. Naturally, the bible has lots to say about God’s wisdom and power. To my knowledge it doesn’t provide a faulty philosophical definition of those concepts (let me know if I’m wrong). Definitions are just attempts to describe God to others after meeting him. Some are better than others.
Not sure why you present a choice between abandoning the Trinity as a concept and redefining “God”. Do you see some tension between standard divine attributes and the Trinity? Let me know. Great connection with the problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom. Yes, there are three main options: Calvinism, Molinism, and Arminianism. It turns out that we do have a similar
set of coherent trinitarian options. In this post I described a “social trinitarian model”. There are also “Latin trinitarian models” and “relative identity models.” This classification is fairly recent, but these are the main options today. That Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article linked above lays them out in some detail.
I personally take it that coherence is a necessary condition for truth. There must be a coherent model correctly describing the Trinity even if we haven’t found it yet. This post describes one such model, but there are others.
If one considers it *impossible* for God to be deceitful (which seems unlikely, given many stories in the Bible) because of His nature, then in what sense is God worthy of worship? If He cannot do otherwise, it seems to me to cheapen perfect moral character. Our perception of Jesus’ moral character is then radically changed (was He *really* tempted?). If one accepts that God is omnipotent in a way that He cannot do logically possible things, or even things that we can do (i.e. make things that we cannot lift, and do evil things), then I think its fair to question in what sense the term “omnipotent” is appropriate. And if all we really mean is “really powerful”, “really smart”, etc., this has serious consequences.
Yes, I think there is a tremendous degree of tension in the formulations of the Trinity and the standard divine attributes. Hypothetically, it’s easy to set up a coherent model of *some kind* of Trinity. We’ve all heard examples of such. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) page, for instance, William Lane Craig offers the example of a Cerberus. The problem comes when you then try to align such examples or models into an (orthodox) theological framework.
The OP cites William Lane Craig’s model of the divine nature being tri-une as a possible solution. But is it really coherent? Consider what is meant by there is one “God”. This, apparently, means that there is only instance of God’s tri-une nature. But now consider what is meant by “Jesus is God”. Now, it supposedly means “member of the Trinity”. Well, we have one word meaning two very different things, and that is the opposite of coherent. This was pretty much the same objection leveled at the example of the Cerberus (referenced in the SEP page), and which Craig labeled “astonishing”. Amusingly, he then noted that we refer to things like “multi-headed dogs” (or something similar) all the time. Yes, we do. But what we do not do is refer to things like “multi-dogged dogs”. Because that doesn’t make sense. An orthodox formulation of the trinity is asking us to refer to a “multi-Godded God”. Like I said before, you’re either going to be forced to change your definition of “God” (as Craig & Moreland did), or abandon the concept altogether. Ironically, perhaps, I’m pretty sure either is a heresy.
And while i can appreciate that, as you pointed out, there ARE options on the table to make sense of the Trinity, what i was getting at is that nothing has gotten any momentum at all. There is a reason, to me, why most Christians will at least recognize the term “Arminian” or “Calvinism” but will have no idea what is mean by a “Latin trinitarian model”. Let’s not confuse attempts at modeling the Trinity with successful, coherent models that are even moderately satisfying. Going through the options on the SEP page, it was either not hard to spot glaring weaknesses in the models, or just notice that they made no sense whatsoever (and several received the objection that they were unintelligible – which is saying something coming from philosophers/theologians!).
The OP is an attempt to make sense of why it takes so long to articulate a coherent doctrine of the Trinity. And, again, while I can appreciate that not every truth is simple, I think its fair to wonder, 2000 years later, if perhaps the reason is because there is no coherent model to be had. I think the obvious answer (for most) is that this simply ISN’T an option, and then an even more interesting question becomes “why?”.
I just don’t see how worthiness of worship is undercut by inability to do wrong. I worship a trustworthy God. This worship is deepened by the knowledge that he won’t fail
me. Could he fail me? God would never do wrong, even if he could. Also I’m never going to deliberately poke out my eye with a pen, even though I could.
I think the root issue here is that I’m attempting to describe God, and if a descriptor turns out to be faulty I’ll drop it. (i.e. if you take omnipotence to be ability to do all logically possible acts, including wrong ones, then I’ll happily admit that God isn’t omnipotent, call him maxipotent or something else). You think there are serious problems if we end up with things like “really powerful” or “really
smart.” I don’t see what these problems are. As long as God is still as advertised in Scripture, I’m satisfied. I’m interested in the God of Israel, not the God of the philosophers.
You still haven’t mentioned how the Trinity is in tension with standard divine attributes. Are you thinking about things like “how can three divine persons all be omnipotent?”, etc?
The SEP article got updated just yesterday! I haven’t been through it fully yet. Yes, coherent models are a dime a dozen, fitting to orthodoxy is the major challenge. You
suggest that Craig’s model is incoherent? And because ‘Jesus is God’ and “God is a Trinity” use “is God” in different ways? Yes. But that is the whole motivation for this model! “Jesus is God” is to be understood as “Jesus is divine” and not as “Jesus is the entire Trinity”. What we have here is not a multi-godded God but a tripersonal God. One being consisting of three inseparable persons, each of whom is divine yet not the whole being. This is certainly coherent. And I think the price to pay with respect to orthodoxy is modest. Jesus is not the Godhead. That’s not a big surprise.
It may well be that people have suppressed their trinitarian doubts so long that very few people are bound to have a position on this issue for fear of being wrong. Indeed, a
major difference between this debate and Calvinism vs Arminianism is that the Trinity is the topic of ecumenical councils; sovereignty vs human freedom is not. People may have been unwilling to risk heresy to think about these issues, which is a shame.
I certainly agree that there are some far-fetched models on the SEP article (that’s why I lean towards a social Trinity). I also think Calvinists are wrong. The presence of wrong or theories doesn’t mean there’s no answer, or that my preferred theory is also weak. You are certainly welcome to wonder if there are no coherent models; showing that
to be the case has yet to be done to my knowledge. For the Christian, however, God is known to be real. Reality is coherent. And so we continue to search for the coherent explanation (Faith seeking understanding). Personally, I think the social Trinity explanation does pretty good.
All the best,
Doesn’t the temptation of Jesus seem like a farce if He never had the ability to sin? And certainly trustworthiness is crucial, and related to goodness and worthiness, but it also isn’t the same thing as worthiness (of worship). One can be trustworthy and not worthy of worship. I don’t see what would be so awe-sinspiring about a being who does good things not because He chooses to, but because He can’t choose not to (if that makes sense). But, in the end, I suppose what constitutes “worthiness” might be a tad subjective, and if you don’t see a problem then I suppose it’s not necessarily my place to insist there is.
We’re on the same page about faulty descriptors. I, too, would urge using more accurate descriptions about God. The question, then, is when we identify logical (or whatever) problems with our descriptions, what happens when we want to drop it, but scripture still *seems* to support it? As you put it: is God being described “as advertised” in scripture? For instance, the reason God is considered “omnipotent” is because (aside from Anselmian notions of perfect beings) scripture says He can do all things. Well, even when we revise this to “all logically possible things” and it still doesn’t hold up, then in what sense is it “all”? Again, you could say “everything that is consistent with His nature”, but a) that isn’t what it says and it’s doubtful that is what was meant, and b) there’s no real difference between that and, well, me. I too can do “all things” consistent with my own nature. That’s hardly impressive. If God is as advertised, then there can be no greater being, yet Jesus claims both John the Baptist and God the Father are greater than He.
In short, I think if the aim is to provide a descriptor from scripture, then it will inevitably clash with at least some scripture. Is God everywhere? Well, it certainly seems so from some passages. But Jesus certainly isn’t everywhere. And apparently the Holy Spirit couldn’t arrive until Jesus let Him, so He’s hardly omnipresent either. Etc.
But that’s just dealing with standard attributes and scripture. You want to discuss Trinity and divine attributes, and potential conflicts. Well, this partly depends on which of those you are willing to claim. There are many who would buy into an Anselmian notion of “greatest conceivable being”. It’s tough, in my opinion, to align that with a tri-personal God. If one were to conceive of the greatest possible being, one with every perfection, etc… one wouldn’t think of multiple beings. As Craig & Moreland noted, it’s also difficult, if not impossible, to square with notions of divine simplicity. Now, I know, you may not be as interested in these attributes as they are generally considered to be more related to the “God of the Philosophers”, but I think it’s somewhat disingenuous to dismiss that as the “God of the Philosophers” and yet eagerly embrace Craig and Moreland’s model.
Many would claim God has aseity. Yet, if God self-exists, in what way does it make sense to claim that Jesus exists in and of Himself? By definition, this would rule out a tri-personal nature of God.
Given what you’ve said here, I’m guessing you’d have no issue with dumping these characteristics, and that is fine – although I think at least a few church councils would deem you a heretic (but, really, when is that not ever the case?). And the cost with these may not be so bad – after all, one can still retain God’s necessary being without claiming aseity (I think). I think there are other complications, similar to the one you brought up. It would be easy to play three beings with omni-attriutes against each other and present immovable object-meets-unstoppable force scenarios. One can always say that such scenarios would be “nonsense” (a la C.S. Lewis), but I think a fair question in response would be if such scenarios are invited by the Trinity concept, is the problem the scenarios or the concept?
I’m a little surprised at your response regarding the Craig-Moreland model. I don’t think I can emphasize enough that if you use “God” in two different ways, that is the OPPOSITE of coherent. And let’s be clear: orthodox, creedal statements about the trinity (like the Athanasian Creed) refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as divine persons, yes, but also as GOD. Jesus is not the Godhead, no, but Jesus is God. If you want to refer to it as a multi-Godded Godhead, go right ahead, but of course it sounds like polytheism (because it is).
Consider also what an obviously ad-hoc move this is, to claim that God’s nature must be tri-une. This response would be like saying the ancient Greeks were actually monotheistic because Zeus being “God” just means that he was a part of the Pantheon, and the Pantheon’s nature was [insert however many entities here]-une. Does that sound like a pretty contrived explanation? I think it’s because it is, and I think it’s fair to point out that saying “God’s nature is tri-une” is pretty much the same. In reality, the model is indistinguishable from polytheism (other than *trying* to appear monotheistic, of course). Ancient cultures would worship pantheons of Gods as singular entities, but they are not regarded as monotheists, and for good cause.
I can concede that no one has demonstrated that there are NO coherent models. I also think that’s a bit unreasonable. It’s a bit more realistic, I think, for there to be an expectation that if there are coherent models, that they will come to the fore (like Calvinism or Arminianism), or that at least they can be easily produced. And while I can appreciate the fact that you attempted to do so here, it seems to me that this model fails the test of coherency. You cannot use terms duplicitously and maintain coherency.
I agree that Jesus’ temptation as a divine person who will not sin raises interesting questions. I’m doing a post on the incarnation this Thursday. Maybe we can chat about that there? You raise lots of interesting points about omniscience, omnipotence, etc. We could have quite a lengthy conversation about these alone. I’d recommend getting your hands on the recent volume “Debating Christian Theism” edited by Moreland, etc. I picked it up on my kindle for cheap recently and thought it did a great job of discussing these issues. There are 40 chapters, 20 in favour of and 20 against various Christian topics, including exchanges on omnipotence, omniscience, the incarnation, and the Trinity. I think you’d really enjoy that book (and you’d certainly resonate with some of the criticisms of Christianity presented there).
So can the Trinity be the ‘greatest conceivable being’? I think it can. Of course, the greatest conceivable being is often thought to be a logically necessary being (rather than a logically impossible being) so it must be coherent, even if we cannot grasp precisely how that is so. Have you heard of Richard of St. Victor? I wrote an essay on his Trinity and posted it here – http://bennasmith.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/tritheism-divine-personhood-and-richard-of-st-victor/. He thought that the greatest being must be triune. I think his argument has problems, but his intuition that it is not good for God to be alone seems intuitive, i.e. God as a Trinity seems greater than God as a lonely monad.
By “God of the philosophers” I’m referring to an definition devised without regard to God as he has revealed himself. If that definition is incoherent, so be it. Poor definitions of God do not undercut the reality of the God of Israel, an entity experienced in history. I don’t mean to undermine philosophy.
Ok, typical Christian-speak is ambiguous. It does not follow that it is incoherent. Moreland and Craig’s model seeks to clarify. “Jesus is God” is taken to mean “Jesus is divine.” God is taken to refer to the Trinity, not any given person. There’s no contradiction here once the language is adjusted to avoid equivocation. It is uncharitable to read the creeds as contradictory, equivocal yes, contradictory no. In any case, social Trinitarianism as a model is built to be coherent. It’s weakness is fit with popular Christian equivocation on the word “God”.
Briefly, the major difference between a pantheon and the Trinity is that members of the pantheon do not depend on each other for their existence. Members of the Trinity do. There could be a pantheon without Zeus. There could be no Trinity without the Son. Anyway, that’s a first stab at the unity of God on a social model.
Just to re-emphasize, typical Christian conversation about the Trinity is ambiguous. The social trinitarian model is not (and the clash between the two is its greatest weakness).
Thanks for the book reference, it does sound right up my alley. I had not heard of Richard of St. Victor, but I have heard of the notion that God, in order to exist, would have to be triune (or at least multi-personal). I don’t know much about that, though, so I’ll have to look into it.
Regarding the greatest conceivable being (GCB) being a trinity, though, you know what’s greater than a trinity? A quadrinity. And a septinity would be greater than that. Etc. Once one opens the door to a being having a multi-personal being – and that being “greater” than just a solo-person being – I think absurdity follows. Because then the GCB would have to be an infinitude of persons being “in” a Being, and I’m not sure that makes any sense. But if it does, then the GCB is not the Trinity.
I appreciate the clarification that the Craig-Moreland model on its own terms, but maybe not when aligned with creeds/doctrine. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that it is uncharitable to “read the creeds as contradictory”. Those responsible for the creeds were not careless in their wording – the words were chosen for a reason. There’s a reason why Jesus is called “God”, the Father is called “God”, the Spirit is called “God”, and the Trinity called “God”. They used the same word on purpose – I’m pretty sure they would have considered (and ultimately rejected) the possibility of using different terminology for the persons of the Trinity.
If the only way to “affirm” the creed is by abandoning the language, I think it’s fair to question whether it actually affirms it. The language of “divine” implies that Jesus would only be *part of God*, but that’s not what orthodoxy says. It also, at the very least, creates confusion scripturally speaking. Say we adopted the social trinitiarian model. In what sense, then, is Jesus the “Son of God”? Jesus is not the Son of the Trinity. We’d have to say that scripture does not speak of “God” in the same way we do, which is curious at best. Or we’d have to say that scripture is wrong, at worst.
Yes, the question “why three” is very interesting. Richard of St. Victor offers an argument based on the concept of love to establish that God must be *at least* three persons. He then offers a (faulty) argument why based on the his concept of person for why God can be *at most* three. Richard Swinburne has recently come up with an alternative argument for why at most three while more or less sticking to Richard of St Victor’s argument for at least three. I cover those all in my essay that I linked to last reply.
Swinburne also maintains that it is uncharitable to read the Fathers as affirming a contradiction. Yes, they did choose there words very carefully. But we should not attribute a direct contradiction to these careful thinkers. That’s what I mean by “a charitable reading.” They should be interpreted so as to not contradict themselves. Why didn’t they choose different terminology? I think the answer to that is their desire to use as much biblical language as possible. With the exception of “homoousios”, they did their best to use biblical terms. The bible, of course, is not written in technical language and is not concerned with double meanings (e.g. the Son of Man must be lifted up).
As a social trinitarian I affirm that Jesus is part of the Trinity and prefer to use the word “God” to denote the Trinity for clarity’s sake. For this reason I prefer to say Jesus is divine rather than Jesus is God (i.e. Jesus is not the Trinity). The bible, however, uses “God” primarily to refer to the Father. So you could list the persons of the Trinity in two ways: a) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or b) God, Son of God, and Spirit of God. I think b) is more common biblical language but also more confusing.
I don’t think it is uncharitable to call a spade a “spade”. I’m not even sure if we know that the church fathers were trying to *avoid* a contradiction. Granted, i am no historian, but traditionally this has been treated as a mystery, not something that is solvable (much like creation ex nihilo or the hypostatic union). But even if they were trying to avoid one, that doesn’t mean that they succeeded.
Consider all the philosophers in the SEP article on the Trinity. Most of those philosophers have been roundly criticized for one thing or another, including being incoherent, despite the fact that they are clear thinkers and careful in their wording. That doesn’t mean their critics were being uncharitable (although it doesn’t mean they weren’t either). Specifically stating that we should avoid reading contradictions in the creeds, to me, is giving them special privilege. In fact, it is essentially granting them the same privilege that is traditionally given to scripture. I’m not sure why we should do that.
I don’t think your suggestion that the creeds were written in primarily biblical language to be very compelling. Admittedly, I do not read Greek, but there is a lot of language (in English anyway) in the Athanasian Creed that’s not in scripture (Incarnation, Trinity, catholic, etc.). The Nicene Creed also contains some non-biblical language (“Light of Light”, substance, Giver of Life, etc.). But, again, that’s just a layman’s view.
The fact that the creeds *seem* to affirm a contradiction is obvious enough. If they didn’t, there would be no problem to solve. So, of course, the question is whether they do. I will continue to insist that there is no way to refer to the persons of the Trinity as “God” as well as the Trinity itself as “God”, without changing the meaning of the word – you can refer to that as incoherent and/or a contradiction. Likewise, any attempted “solution” to the problem that specifically avoids the language the creed uses can be fairly criticized for not actually adhering to the creed. It’s also fair, as I’m sure you might argue, that it still abides by the spirit of it, if not the letter.
So, does referring to Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father as “divine persons” adequately capture the spirit of the creed? I suppose that is possible, if all the characteristics of “Godhood” are still in place (i.e. all the omni-attributes). So, then we are left to wonder if by referring to “God” as simply the assemblage of persons (the Trinity) as in keeping with the spirit of the creed, and I do NOT think that is the case. No one has ever really heard the word “God” and simply thought “Trinity”. In fact, it’s weird to me that the model essentially treats the words as interchangeable. Historically, that has not been the case. “trinity” has been a characteristic of God, not a synonym.
Like I said before, the language of the social trinitarian model basically include the “divine persons” as a *parts* of God. And, I think, is exactly the notion that the church fathers were trying to avoid by using the same word (“God”) to describe both the members and the Trinity. I think that the social trinitarian model essentially affirms that this is not possible to do coherently.
Please, call a spade a spade. Just don’t take it for granted that it is indeed a spade. I try and read the fathers in the best possible light so that my criticism or questions are more meaningful. This is a good policy when dealing with anyone else’s ideas in fact (although laziness gets in the way sometimes, let’s be real).
Yes, the Athanasian creed uses plenty of non-biblical language (and I’m not talking about Greek). I didn’t mean to refer to that “creed” (it’s controversial anyway, just ask the Eastern Orthodox church). When I refer to the creeds, I mean the first seven ecumenical counsels. In the Nicene Creed, we do have all biblical language (Light and life-giver are prominent themes in John) with the exception of “substance”. This term was needed to edge out the Arians, who also used biblical language and so couldn’t be fully refuted with it.
“I will continue to insist that there is no way to refer to the persons of the Trinity as “God” as well as the Trinity itself as “God”, without changing the meaning of the word” – Amen! You are describing equivocation (same word two meanings). However, using a word equivocally does not entail that one has contradicted oneself. It just makes one difficult to understand. Social trinitarianism uses the word God univocally to name the Trinity. It uses other language (is divine) to express the divine status of the persons.
If I understand your right, you’ve claimed that the doctrine is equivocally articulated by some (even the fathers). Of course. But you haven’t shown that it is contradictory. To be contradictory, you would need to show that Christians use the word God univocally in contradictory propositions. I don’t (I hope), and I don’t think the fathers did either.
I admit that using the word “God” to name the Trinity is not the way it has normally been used. That is certainly true. I’d suggest that it’s not the words used but their intended meanings that matter (this was Athanasius’ insight prior to Constantinople). If the creeds use “God” equivocally, then it is impossible for me to match their word usage in any univocal translation of their idea.
Here’s another possible social trinitarian description:
1. There is one Trinity consisting of three persons: God, the Son of God, and the Spirit of God.
2. Each person is fully and equally divine.
In this example, I’ve used “God” to denote the Father rather than the Trinity.
Anyway, to sum up I think you’re trying to pin me down for not using creedal language, Guilty! I’m trying to translate an equivocal statement of faith into unambiguous univocal language. What I’d be interested to know is whether you have any concerns with the content of social trinitarianism, not it’s language. I suspect you have problems with the persons being part of “God”. What about the persons being part of the Trinity? This is a long reply already so please remind me again what your content related concerns are and choose your preferred use of the word “God”. I’ll try and reply to your univocally
using the terminology of your choice.
Good thoughts, Ben. People often throw around “contradiction” but it’s actually pretty tough to prove a formal, logical contradiction. This would imply that we know exactly what we are talking about in order to show that two things are contradictory in precisely the same way. And with the Trinity? Well, not the easiest thing to claim one knows the nature of God that intimately. There’s some pretty interesting stuff from Augustine re: Trinity, especially in the context of Neoplatonism and dialectics. I’m not going to say it’s Orthodox or logically satisfying to a scientific mind but it makes you realize how many ways Three can be One and how difficult it is for the human mind to prove otherwise.
Thanks Keith! You may find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the Trinity to be quite interesting. We may not know how it works, but we can certainly identify incoherent explanations and rule them out. That leaves a handful of realistic approaches. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/