Brian Leftow’s “A Latin Trinity” (Faith & Philosophy 21:3, July 2004, 304-33) is a theory of the Trinity which aims to be squarely in the tradition of “Augustine, Boethius, Anselm and Aquinas”. (304) He also cites the Athanasian creed and the one from Toledo in 675 as well. I’m going to treat this challenging article in parts, and do some simplifying and summarizing in order to make it more widely understandable.
After quoting part of the Athanasian creed, Leftow remarks “Such odd arithmetic needs explaining.” (304) His aim, then, is to show how those claims are in fact “coherent” – neither contradictory nor meaningless, but something Christians may reasonably believe to be true. He’s trying to show that his “Latin trinitarianism” is “monotheist and orthodox” as well, in contrast to “social trinitarian” thought. (307) At the start, he reiterates some of his previous language (304-6) – here, he’s going to further clarify his position. I think he succeeds in doing that.
Now come the metaphysical fireworks. Here is Leftow’s central “thought experiment” – a supposedly possible event which will by analogy help us to understand how God can be three Persons in one being or essence.
Suppose all the Rockettes but one called in sick. But the one healthy one, Jane, secures a time-travel machine. Using this, she puts on a great show, one which is normally done with three dancers. She simply performs the left role, then jumps into the machine, comes out, puts her arm around that other stage of herself dancing the left role, and dances the center role. Repeat again with the right role, and the show is saved.
[The time-travel machine] lets the one Jane be present at one time many times over, in many ways… It gives us one Jane in many personae. If we give the name “Rockette” to what we see many of, it lets the one Jane be (or be present in) many Rockettes. [The time-travel machine] does this by freeing the events composing Jane’s life from the general order of time.” (308, original emphasis in italics)
Of course, the million-dollar question is, “Is time travel genuinely possible?” (308) I’d say that many different metaphysical committments arguably prevent one from thinking it is – many committments that I have, and that I’d argue are the default or “common sense” ones. That is, if you believe certain things, it logically follows that our time travelling is contradictory. These include theories like presentism, the belief that we endure rather than perdure (so that we lack temporal parts), belief in an “open” future, and belief in incompatibilist freedom. To you non-metaphysicians, I apologize for the preceding load of jargon. My point here is a simple one: it is far from clear that time travel is non-contradictory, that it could even possibly happen. As far as I know, Leftow is consistent; he doesn’t hold any theses which clearly entail that time-travel is impossible. But many philosophers, like me, do. It isn’t too clear, then, what Leftow is really accomplishing. Isn’t this a case of trying (and failing) to illuminate the obscure by using something even more obscure?
It’s important to see how “low” Leftow is aiming in this piece.
I want to suggest by analogy with a time-travel case that it is possible that God be a Latin Trinity. That is, I want to suggest that for all we know, this is how it is with God in some metaphysically possible world. …my claim is only that a Latin doctrine of the Trinity has likenesses to something found in some metaphysically possible world. (309)
He isn’t exactly, then, offering a model of God’s nature. He’s just saying – here’s a cosmos-situation which seems possible, and for all we know, God’s nature is somewhat like that. This is centrally a defensive project. As we’ll see, he’s content to leave much of the “mystery” intact. So no, he’s not saying that God is himself a time-traveller. (310) I don’t think Leftow is merely defensive, though – as we’ll see next time, there is positive content to his claims. A little later in the paper, he ratchets down his aims even lower.
…even if pastward time travel is impossible, talk about it may help us clarify other, genuinely possible things. (311)
I’m not so sure about the utility of admittedly impossible thought-experiments, but the technically-minded can see his appeal to an example involving intuitionist logic. (311)
Back to time-travel, Leftow acknowledges that a big threat to our thinking it possible is as follows. If we traveled back to our past, it seems we’d have all the powers we enjoy now. We’d be able, then, to kill our earlier self. But that’s contradictory – if we died back then, how’d we exist in the future, so as to be able to travel back and committ that odd sort of suicide we’re imagining? As an example, suppose that Howard Dean decides today that he’s proud of his infamous scream – so proud, in fact, that he wishes it were his last act – he wants to end on such a high note, thus securing his place in history. So, he time-travels back to the celebration of his glorious third-place Iowa primary “victory” in early 2004, and kills his earlier self, right after said scream.
Leftow says sure – but only because we’re supposing that Dean has libertarian (incompatibilist) freedom. But it’s possible for there to be creatures much like us, except without that sort of freedom. And it’s possible that they exist in a deterministic world which is so arranged that time-travellers may not kill their earlier selves. Hence, it is possible that time-travel occurs. In philosophers’ lingo, there’s a “possible world” in which someone travels in time. (309-10)
Another much-discussed difficulty is the issue of “causal loops”. He gives an example that involves a knife-fight among the Jane-stages in the above Rockette scenario. (310) But here’s what I think is a more vivid example. Suppose I tell you that I’ve learned how to build a time machine. You ask how I learned that, and I tell you that my future self from the year 2020 travelled back in time to inform me. So the later Dale learned from the earlier Dale… and vice-versa! It seems that my knowledge of time-machine-building hasn’t been explained at all, though! So it looks like time-travel opens up the possibility of bizarre causal loops which lack an explanation. Leftow says, if you think they need an explanation, how about this: God upholds the “loop” in which later-Dale informs earlier-Dale, and is also informed by earlier-Dale. (310-1) I told you this guy was tricky! 🙂 So again, we can’t say that time travel is impossible. But even if it were, as he’s noted, that’s ok. Next time: OK, what’s the payoff of all this when it comes to the Trinity?
Technorati Tags: Leftow, Latin Trinity, Latin trinitarian, Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas, Toledo, time travel, causal loops, theology
Pingback: Leftow 4: “A Latin Trinity” - Part 3 at trinities
Hey Dale, While I have some reservations about a point or three (Who doesn’t? I even have reservations about my thoughts:) )just wanted to say that I enjoy your thought provoking website. The study of the trinity is a serious matter and for that part needs to be taken seriously. I was reminded of this when I looked at a site devoted to musilm apologetics http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/60-questions-for-the-christians-to-answer/ and in its section on 60 Question for Christians to answer it had several trinitarian questions:
. Is God three-in-one and one in three simultaneously or one at a time?
6. If God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the complete God. Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor was the “Father in Heaven†a whole God. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus always said about His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord? Does that also mean that there was no complete god then, between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?
7. If God is one and three at a time, then who was the God in heaven when Jesus was on earth? Wouldn’t this contradict his many references to a God in Heaven that sent him?
8. If God is three and one at the same time, who was the God in Heaven within three days between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?
Some of them are deceptively simple but it goes to show how important these issues are. Thanks for your website.
Thank you very much, Blake!
Jeff: congratulations on you new addition! Our discussion understandably takes second seat to that very important event.
Please Blake, of course I’m going to have “pre-judgments” regarding what I think a cult is or is not/a false religion is or is not, a false god (idol) is or is not, since one of my presuppostions is the authority of Bible This is what is going to determine what is true from what is false.
We just had a baby, 9 days old now…I don’t have time to get into a long discussion with you on these matter.
I pointed you to a site where others might have the time. If you would like to come on the air to discuss these things, we can get you on as a guest on The Narrow Mind.
We will also be dealing with some of these issue in our conference next year
http://www.rctr.org/conference.htm
Jeff: The only thing that is clear is that you cannot back up your claims. I challenged you to give a definition of “cult” that wasn’t simply based on your own pre-judgments — i.e., prejudices. In response, more name-calling.
Just why my take on Romans was silly is difficult to divine from your post. Easily asserted, nothing to back it up, gratuitous — just like your name-calling. Moreover, just what is it you claim is suppressed? What false gods? I suggest that your begging-off is an easy out for lazy responses. Is that what you call “Christian”?
For what its worth, I cited several top-notch scholars for the Romans interpretation. But since you give exactly zero basis for you opinion, I don’t believe what you have written warrants much response.
No one is saying that early father were not influenced by Greek philosophical language, etc. To make the case that significant doctrines where in jepordy (which is what the LDS must say) is another story. One that not only the LDS cult put forth, but the JWs as well. Of course, both of these religions claim that they are the restoration of true Christianity. The fact is, it was never lost.
I briefly looked at your article, I do not have the time to go through it at length. Your take on the Romans passage was pretty silly, if you ask me. My wife had a baby on Sunday, so you can imagine I along with her are tired and busy, thefore I will not be looking at the artile at length at this point.
Cult, New Religious Movement, etc. I don’t care what term you want to use. What is clear, is the God set forth in Holy Scripture, and the fact that unbelievers suppress the truth by “creating” false god (i.e. idols). This is exactly what Joseph Smith and exactly what Charles Taze Russell did. So, the Holy Writ is what defines what is orthodox and what is outside of Christianity.
Stop over here http://triablogue.blogspot.com/
perhaps you’ll get some response.
Jeff: I’m preparing to submit a response to Beckwith’s paper cited above in # 4. It is no accident that the God of the early Patristic Fathers mirrored in so many respects the middle and neo-Platonic absolutes or Ideas. I have also documented that Greek influence on the significant shift in “christian” thought at some length in this article: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=590
I would be interested in your thoughts on my response to Copan & Craig in any event. Moreover, I’d sure would like to see your definition of “cult” that doesn’t simply beg the questions as “whatever doesn’t agree with my beliefs.”
Since Open Theist claim the same things as JWs and LDS and many other cults, regarding the earlier Church, the chapter will be useful.
I reject your blanket assertions and your leaping of logic.
But, I’m willing to live with it since I’m busy.
Jeff,
The first century church actually worried about getting to far away from the Hebrew roots! Acts 15 shows us that they were worried about Paul going too far! We should be very worried as well! Since the “church fathers” didn’t take the Hebrew roots too seriously and interpreted in light of their greek philosophy and thought. St Gregory of Nyssa called the pagan idea of an immortal soul a “pious offspring” with the Christian faith. While the Jewish faith in the New Testament entirely denies the concept of an immortal soul – it is entirely foreign. And I don’t why you level “anti Open-Theist” claims to me, I am not an open theist. I merely claim to believe in Yahweh the one true God, who sent a man, his son, Jesus.
“Christianity cut itself off from its Hebrew roots and acquired Hellenistic and Roman formâ€
Was this cut a complete cut?
Given that the statement is true, what does this prove. The are many things that NT Christians cut themselves off from “Hebrew roots”, since Christs’ first coming.
So, coming from your non-trinitarian position, I’m not sure what this proves.
You may also want to check out
“Hellenistic or Hebrew? Open Theism and Reformed Theological Method”, by Michael Horton. Found in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Eds. John Piper, Justin Taylor and Paul Kjoss Helseth (Crossway, 2003; ISBN#: 1-5813-4462-7).
I know you don’t, that is your entire position. But I am absolutely flabbergasted how you can deny this:
“Christianity cut itself off from its Hebrew roots and acquired Hellenistic and Roman form”
Everyone knows this. It’s written in the Encyclopedia. It has been written over and over and over. I mean look at Philo. And then look at the Pharisees – they are so different. The Pharisees came from the Maccabees/Hasmodeans who resisted Greek rule and culture. Philo lived in Alexandria the capital of Greek thought.
Pingback: Leftow 3: “A Latin Trinity” - Part 2 at trinities
I certainly do not agree with Moltman and I don’t believe I know any orthodox Christian who would agree with what you posted above.
From Jürgen Moltman, The Spirit of Life, 2001, p. 89
“In the degree to which Christianity cut itself off from its Hebrew roots and acquired Hellenistic and Roman form, it:
1) Lost its eschatological hope
2) Gave up its apocalyptic solution for ‘this world’ of violence and death
3) Merged into late antiquity’s Gnostic religion of salvation, and:
4) ‘Heaven’ replaced the coming Kingdom
5) The redemption of the soul from the body replaced the spirit as the source of life
6) The immortality of the soul displaced the resurrection of the body
7) People hoped for the soul’s escape from the body.”
John, who are you referring to in the above post?
Also, I compiled a list of resources some time ago on Greek philosophical influences, which I’ll post here. There are in no special order and in raw form. Hopefully they will come through:
Following is a link to a Van Til course in which he deals with Greek philosophy and it’s impact Christ and Human Thought (page down)
Also, for a short historical sketch, see “Apostles to the Philosophers” in Church History in Plain Language. Bruce Shelly (Word Books, 1996; ISBN#: 0-8499-3861-9), pgs. 78-87.
I know Greg Bahnsen deals with this in his course History of Western Philosophy:
Ancient & Medieval
“Mormon Theism, the Traditional Christian Concept of God, and Greek Philosophy: A Critical Analysis.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 44, No. 4 (2001).
“Has the Christian Doctrine of God Been Corrupted by Greek Philosophy?”, by Gerald Bray. Located in God Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents God. Douglas S. Huffman and Eric L. Johnson (Zondervan, 2002; ISBN#: 0-3102-3269-4).
“Hellenistic or Hebrew? Open Theism and Reformed Theological Method”, by Michael Horton. Found in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Eds. John Piper, Justin Taylor and Paul Kjoss Helseth (Crossway, 2003; ISBN#: 1-5813-4462-7).
“Genetic Defects or Accidental Similarities? Orthodoxy and Open Theism and Their Connection to Western Philosophical Traditions”, by Chad Own Brand. Found in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Eds. John Piper, Justin Taylor and Paul Kjoss Helseth (Crossway, 2003; ISBN#: 1-5813-4462-7).
“Athens or Jerusalem?-The Question of Distinctiveness”, James Barr, Found in Old and New Interpretation (London: SCM Press, 1966).
“The Greek Versus the Hebrew View of Man” George Eldon Ladd found in The Pattern of New Testament Truth (Eerdmans, 1968). Online at .
Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1986. Stephen Neill and Tom Wright (Oxford Press, 1988; ISBN#: 0-1928-3057-0) (particularly the last chapter).
Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Eerdmans, 1994; ISBN#: 0-8028-2666-0) (particularly James Dunn’s chapter).
The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought. Ronald H. Nash (Presbyterian & Reformed, 2003; ISBN#: 0-8755-2559-8).
Cyrus Gordon responded to some of these claims in _The common background of
Greek and Hebrew civilizations_ (New York: The Norton Library, 1965) and I think he may have dealt with this in his earlier _Homer and the Bible_ (1955) and also in his _Before the Bible_ (1962).
M. Silva, _Biblical Words and Their Meaning_ (1983)
R. Scott Clark
“Greek Origins of Natural Theology”, by Robert K. McGregor Wright.
Journal of Biblical Apologetics, No. 1, Vol. 1 (Fall 2000).
Also, go to this page http://www.rctr.org/ap5.htm and check out the lectures from Van Til on Philosophy and Apologetics.
I’m referencing his Audio CD set “What the Early Christians” aka Church Fathers “Believed”. He is essentially an expert on the ante-nicean fathers. And he has a CD titled the trinity.
Hey JohnO – I may agree. Can you say more about what an “Augustinian reading” of Nicea is, or maybe just quote the passage you have in mind?
David Bercot says that the Augustinian reading of the Council of Nicea is wholly incorrect. He is a trinitarian himself. You should check it out. He is the editor of the Dictionary of Early Christian beliefs.
Comments are closed.