Thanks to Rob Bowman for his thoughtful reply to my previous post regarding the Shema and his argument with Sir Anthony Buzzard.
While I sided with Mr. Bowman regarding the meaning of the Shema (as saying that YHWH is unique – who which only presupposes, but doesn’t assert that he is a god), I think Buzzard is correct that ancient Jews thought that YHWH was a certain mighty self. This is plausible, even unavoidable, as they thought he was a god, and in later OT writings, a unique god, the god, unequivocally in a class of his own, but a god nonetheless. The concept of a god just the concept of a certain kind of self – of a being to whom one can speak, and who might speak to us. (Notice the personal pronouns in that last sentence.) A god is by definition not a mere force, group, or something-we-know-not-what. It is not relevant that they didn’t have the term “self;” they had and used the concept.
Mr. Bowman doesn’t want to say that NT revelation contradicts OT revelation. (I agree.) And yet, as an evangelical, he’s committed to the old catholic language about God as a Trinity. So, he is compelled to understand the Trinity (at least in this argument) in a one-self way, contrary, for instance, to Bill Hasker, Richard Swinburne, or other three-self (“social”) trinitarians. I take him to be a one-selfer, in part, because Bowman reproduces the common theological saying that the “Persons” of the Trinity are not “persons in the modern sense,” that is, what I call “selves.” The point of this move is that there is but one self, and so, one god, among the members of the Trinity. The “Persons” there must, instead of selves, be something like God’s personalities, or lives, or modes of being, etc. (Bowman says them to be “loci of relationality” – but of course it is selves who stand in interpersonal relationships. I’m assuming he means the “Persons” to be less than selves, things which depend for their existence on a self.) This is a common move, made famous in the 20th c. by Barth and Rahner, though one may also find it, e.g. the trinitarian controversy of the 1690s.
It does, in my view (but I think, maybe not in Sir Anthony’s view) count as a kind of monotheism. It is, strictly, consistent with what the OT teaches about YHWH. For all the OT says, why couldn’t the one God have multiple personalities, modes of being, “streams” to his life, “loci of relationality,” or whatnot? But, this one-self trinitarian monotheism comes at a price. First, a patently incoherent christology. The christology is incoherent because in order to be the mediator between humans and God, the Savior needs to be a second self, in addition to God. Mediation is a three-way (or more) relationship – there must be at least three: a mediator, at least one who approaches through him, and at one who is approached in this indirect way. If God himself does the mediating, that’s just to say that there is no mediator! And a mode, locus, personality – such a thing is to “thin” to obey, serve, mediate – only selves do those. Second, this view of the Son is inconsistent with a central teaching of the NT: the (hierarchical) friendship between the Father/God and Jesus/the Son of God. These two talk to one another, and the former is the boss of the latter, who obeys him.
“You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1)
“The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished. Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.” (John 5)
Statements like these presuppose that God is a self, and that Jesus is a self, and that they are two different selves, and not the same one. The theory at hand makes there be but one self between the Father and the Son. But that’s one short.
Even in the epistles, it is c
lear that God and his Son are two selves, and so two beings, and not two modes (personalities, etc.) of one being. Look at the start of any letter in the NT attributed to Paul. He sends greetings from both of them, which’d be redundant if they were the same same. (Compare: “Merry Christmas from the President of the USA, and from Barack Obama.”) And John says that “truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3) That is, the one God, and also, the one Lord. (1 Cor. 8) There are two whom Christians worship, even though many confuse the two together.
Is Bowman’s one-self Trinity theory monotheism? Yes. Is it biblical monotheism, that fits the NT? No! This is a catholic tradition against the clear teaching of the NT. I urge Mr. Bowman to side with the ongoing Reformation on this one.
In sum, something is clear to every careful NT reader, though it can be obscured by traditional catholic committments, that the Lord, the one the OT calls “YHWH,” is none other than the one Jesus calls “Father.” But, just as YHWH is a god, and so, a self, so is the Father. Thus, the Father is not a mere mode of a self, not merely a way that the one God is or lives. Neither is Jesus.
This post is long in the tooth. I’ll post again soon on the disagreement between Bowman and me regarding “The Father and I are one.”
Someone here desperately deludes himself that the “proto-trinitarianism” of Tertullian is … er … unitarian and that ONLY the full-fledged “trinity” which appeared at the end of the 4th century (when the ruse of distinguishing between ousia and hypostasis became established) is … er … trinitarian (including the “latin” flavor and the “social” flavor).
Sean/ Dale
Perhaps I’m being naive – or just stupid but I find it difficult to understand how a modern day Catholic can justify his belief in the Trinity!
(i) There seems to be an acknowledgment that the model of three ‘hypostases ‘ sharing one ‘ousia ‘seems to be open to attack
(a) As being inconsistent- a ‘contradiction’ -as is admitted in the Catholic Encyclopedia
(b) Not supportd by scripture
.
(ii) What is now proposed is the ‘one-self, three personalities’ – or seemingly modalistic model.
This may be ‘ consistent ‘ – but many’ gymnastics’ can be made to be consistent but be ultimately meaningless. The bad news for Trinitarians is that the thinking is out of line with the scriptures
As Sean states , we have one ‘brain’ or ‘self-consciousness’ which is functionally dominant- where one begat the other and the third emerged via aspiration’
The mind boggles!!
Have I got it right?
Where do Trinitarians have to go from here? !!!
Blessings
John
Matt,
I’m not sure why you’re going on about Tertullian in this thread… Anyway, I agree that Tertullian’s theology was speculative, but in my view, he was a unitarian. For him the one God is the Father, and he uses “Trinity” to refer to God, his Son, and his Spirit. But the latter two are lesser, and literally later than the God who (Tertullian thinks) shares a portion of his (material) substance with them.
https://trinities.org/blog/archives/5049
Sean,
Merricks, T., 2006, “Split Brains and the Godhead”, in Knowledge and Reality: Essays in Honor of Alvin Plantinga, T. M. Crisp, M. Davidson and D. Vander Laan (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 299–326.
also, a chapter in William Hasker’s recent book
Both are careful to say that they’re not straight-up endorsing this is a model or even very good analogy for the Trinity doctrine, as they understand it.
A problem with multiple personality cases is that people disagree about how to understand them. In my view, we should think they are cases of one malfunctioning human self, which serially lives in different ways, giving off a false appearance of multiple selves. I think you agree.
Probably the avg. person who appeals to multiple personality disorder to illustrate the Trinity is thinking in a one-self way – God is one self with three personalities. A theological disaster, but, it is monotheistic, and seemingly consistent.
The Tri{3}nity tradition, (including the proto-concepts of the Modalists, advancing onto Tertullian’s daring and purely personal and speculative modifications and additions to Modalism, then to the yet further modifications of Philosopher Theologians of the Pre and Post-Chanceldonian era), deliberately ignore the Biblical concept and concrete teaching of agency, (Heb., Shaliach LXX Gk., Apostolos additionally Heb., Malach LXX Gk., Aggelos), the teaching of the “One God[‘s]” representatives carrying the name Jehovah upon them, and speaking in the name of Jehovah as His messengers, but not actually being the Person of Jehovah themselves. This tradition also goes beyond the simple “unity” of agreement, harmony, and cooperation in work, (external relations), into, (internal relations), metaphysical, (i.e. speculative), relations within God, or the God “substance”. Into things not written, places we dare not go, things we should not say.
Of course with – all limitations – of the Biblical, (purely written), revelation, now thrown off for Tertullian as a Montantist, (cult follower and genuine believer in “The New Prophecy”), there was no longer ANY restriction on what could be speculated about. Thus, Tertullian had no scruples about adding modifications that HE BELIEVED Montanus revealed, and what he on his, (i.e. Montanus), behalf added, (Compare Jerome “De Viris Illustribus,” Chapter 24, “quos scripsit adversus Ecclesiam pro Montano.” translated: “which he [= Tertullian] wrote as an enemy against the Church for [Or: “on behalf of” “in favor of”] Montanus.”). Tertullian had no qualms of conscience whatsoever about adding his own speculative and metaphysical ideas in “Adversus Praxean”, which had a profound effect on Latin Christian writers, (known readers of his works), like Hilary, and Cyprian, Augustine and others.
It was this speculation into the so-called “Internal relations” of the nature of God, the substance of God, the generation of the Logos, (Incidentally compare Melito of Sardis “Book”, not just a treatise, but “Book” on or: “Concerning the Creation and Generation of Christ.” Book 4, chapter 26, Section 2, Eusebius of Caesarea “Ecclesiastical History”), etc, etc, that the Philosopher Christians, who would not remove their Philospher’s garments “Palium”, (Compare Tertullians defense on this in “De Palio” or “One the Philosophers Cloak”), who dared to go way way beyond what “was written” into their own ideas, and personal theories, that now pass off as “Christian” dogma, substituting God’s word in the Churches.
Bowman, just follows Tertullians slight modification of Modalism, (his words were just more cunning “counterfeit words” 2nd Pet. 2:3 than what Praxeas “counterfeit words” were). “Trinity” is simply a modified version of Modalism, (i.e. the new “New Prophecy” modifications), invented by Tertullian him-SELF. In other words, just a more “developed” heresy than the heresy of Modalsim, (as it is now called). Note how easy it is to go from Praxeas Modalism to Trinity below; exhibiting how closely related they in fact are:
MODALISM = ( One ) person
TRI{3}NITY = ( One ) substance
MODALISM = ( Three ) masks, modes, forms, manifestations
TRI{3}NITY = ( Three ) persons
Tertullian simply swapped “substance” for “person”, and swapped “person(s)”, for “modes”. How hard was that! Just a simple swap around, and wa la! A “new” heresy is begotten.
In saying that, both Praxeas and Tertullian were jealous for two underlying concepts. One, the unity, and, two, the numerical oneness.
Both in their own, (perhaps well motivated but still misled), way, were trying to protect the Biblical teaching of “One God” only. And effectively, both, (as are all modern Tri{3}nitarians), were trying to make, both the holy spirit and Jesus into the One Person of Jehovah, i.e. effectively, the One Person of the Father. Both with the motive of trying to avoid the charge of Polytheism, (by both “Orthodox” Christianity from which they had both deviated, and the Pagans), in the process.
Tertullians numerical oneness was of one thing, i.e. the God stuff “substance”.
Praxeas numerical oneness was of one person, i.e. God the Father.
Both heretics, and both were wrong.
Both went “beyond” the confines of the Bibles boundaries of “what is written”, (the rule in 1st Cor. 4:6).
Both Tertullian and Praxeas went beyond “what was written”. Both going into the area of personal speculation. Tertullians membership in the “New Prophecy” cult of Montanus provided the catalyst and perfect heretical environment in order to do this. With “New” revelations, updates and so-called advancements, (beyond those of the OT, Apostles, Gospels and Jesus, according to Hippolytus), and improvements coming from the “New” prophecy all the time, (Tertullain reasons), why not? It’s was an “inspired” idea to him! Literally, he considered it “inspired” by the “Paraclete” as or in Montanus. This newly inspired theory satisfied his own intellectual interests, and, (in his eyes), was doing good by solving perceived problems, which he personally perceived in the “plural language” of Genesis 1:26 etc, and the perceived problem of how Jesus can be, (is allowed, permitted to be), called a god, (without multiplying gods numerically), at the same time. As do the modern Tri{3}nitarians. They see themselves as problem solvers, and the real defenders of the “One” God, as did Tertullian, and, perhaps, all other Modalists.
Tertullians model was, (in a limited sense), more “Orthodox”, (for want of a better word), for his time, i.e. he included the subordination of the Son to the Father, which was later rejected, (as we know from history of course), for the more “developed”, (i.e. modified and even more speculative), Bi{2}nitarian equilateral model at Nicea 325, with the Son being “exalted” beyond what he was Biblically, over the top into an equality with “his” very own “God”, (compare Revelation 1:6).
P.S. Of course there’s a lot more to it than that, but space, (writing space that is), and time does not allow. One final thought, the fact that the “Trinity”, (a word invented by Tertullian), was also invented in the crucible of a polarized argument with Praxeas, which, (in my opinion), is a simple modification of Modalism, explains WHY Tri{3}nitarians cannot explain the so-called “Orthodox” Tri{3}nity without falling into, and using Modalistic reasoning, premises, and Modalistic language as and in their resulting explanation. And WHY ordinary Tri{3}nitarians speak in Modalistic terms all the time without even realizing it. The two theories are so intimately tied they cannot be separated, nor explained without the other. Modalism came first, then Tri{3}nity, in reaction to Modalsim. Tertullian just took it, modified it, repackaged it, gave it a new name, a “NEW” Prophecy name, the “Trinitas”. That’s the starting point of a new “New Prophecy” heresy. Lastly, in regard to Theophilus’, Hippolytus, and Clem. Alex. and Origen, their Gk., ( TRIADOS )’s. Gk., ( TRIADOS ) did not have the same meaning as Tertullian newly invented word Ltn., “trinitas”. Gk., ( TRIAS ) is, in effect, a Tri{3}theistic word, (if anything), simply meaning three, in a poly-sense of many. It simply did not mean three together as or within one thing, as was later pinned onto it, as a redefinition.
“Yeah, I can cite academic papers where serious Christian thinkers propose that people like Sybil can help us, somehow, to understand the Trinity.”
Please do! Perhaps that’s why no Trinitarian has ever complained when I offered this analogy.
Years ago, before I even began reading sophisticated works like those you’ve contributed to the dialogue, I realized that if one takes everything Trinitarians say about God and Jesus seriously, then the resulting God would have to be (by analogy) either like a man with three brains, where one brain is functionally dominant (the Father brain), or like a Divine Sybil, except that one of the personalities somehow “begat” another while a third emerges via “spiration”.
This takes me back to this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The theory of relations also indicates the solution to the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. Neither person nor mind is self-consciousness; though a person must needs possess self-consciousness, and consciousness attests the existence of mind (see PERSONALITY)…Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction.” (Found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm)
Yeah, I can cite academic papers where serious Christian thinkers propose that people like Sybil can help us, somehow, to understand the Trinity.
Sounds like a multiple personality disorder, except that with God it wouldn’t be a “disorder”, obviously. Who knew that Sybil Dorsett (a/k/a Shirley Ardell Mason) may have been a living analogy of the Triune God? Is there an irony in the fact that some have disputed Mason’s disorder and suggested that she was rather an “extremely suggestible hysteric”?
Comments are closed.