|
Listen to this post:
|
Most Christians are (at least in theory, according to creeds and statements of faith promulgated by denominations) trinitarians, believers in a triune or tri-personal God, which they call the Trinity. But some have always been unitarians, believers in one God who is one perfect self, who does not in any way contain three selves or “persons.” Nowadays, these are a minority (again, going by official statements and membership rolls – I think the facts about Christians’ actual beliefs are more complicated than the official documents suggest).
In my view, before around the start of the fifth century, unitarians were always a majority. Of course, they didn’t call themselves “unitarians” – that term is of late 17th century coinage – but arguably most of them were unitarians – for some arguments read this. (Update: or this series.)
In any case, one can’t determine what is true by taking a vote. Truth may be unpopular. But also, it can be popular. So, who is right?
I propose that the following clear arguments provide a way forward. Which should we accept?
T1 The Father is not the Trinity
T2 The Trinity is God.
T3 Therefore, the Father is not God.
T1 The Father is not the Trinity.
U2 The Father is God.
U3 Therefore, The Trinity is not God.
“Is” here means numerical identity throughout. If x in this sense “is” y (in logic we write x=y) then x and y are one and the same, numerically one thing, numerically identical, and so x and y can’t ever differ in any way. The order doesn’t matter: it will be true that x=y just in case it is also true that y=x. And if it is false that x=y, then x and y are truly two – those terms name different things. To repeat: every “is” in these arguments is the “is” of identity. This is why we’re dealing with clear arguments. We’re not talking about some less close relation or association.
“God” here names Yahweh, the one true God asserted in the Hebrew scriptures.
Each argument is valid; in each case, if both premises were to be true, then the conclusion would also be true.
But we can’t consistently accept both arguments as sound. T2 conflicts with U3, and T3 conflicts with U2 (in both cases the pairs are contradictories – pairs such that one must be true and the other false).
So what to do?
Let us start on common ground. All sides should agree to T1. The reason is that if there is a Trinity – however you understand it – it differs from the Father. And so, it (or: he, they) can’t be one and the same thing as the Father, can’t be numerically identical to him. For example, no one thinks that the Father contains three “persons” (however understood), but on any understanding of the Trinity it (or he, or they) somehow contains or is composed of three “persons.” So trinitarians should agree with T1. Whatever the relation between the Father and the Trinity it is, however close, however mysterious, we know that it can’t be identity, for it is self-evident that one and the same thing can’t differ from itself at one time (or in eternity).
- Do you think that the Father “is God” in some other sense? (e.g. is wholly composed of the divine nature, possesses the divine essence, is a part of the triune God, is a member of the group of divine persons who collectively are “God”) Fine. Still, you should agree with T1; T1 is consistent with such theories.
- For their part, unitarian Christians also agree with T1, because they think that the triune God is a hypothesized entity that does not actually exist. Thus, it is false that the Father is numerically the same with it, which is what T1 asserts.
But having agreed on premise 1, we’re still stuck.
- If we accept T2, we’ll conclude that the first argument is sound. (So, we’ll take it as a reason to believe T3.)
- But if we accept U2, we’ll think the second argument is sound, and so gives us a reason to believe U3 (which, of course, conflicts with T2).
So far, this has all been easy – just logic, combined with a self-evident truth which everyone knows.
But now things get a little harder. You must ask: which do I have more reason to believe – T2 (The Trinity is God) or U2 (The Father is God)?
I suggest that a good Christian should ask: WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do?). And our best information about that is in the New Testament. Does it explicitly teach either T2 or U2?
Surely not T2, for the simple reason that the writers of the NT have no concept of a triune or tripersonal God. If they had such a concept, it’d be easy for them to assign a term, a word or phrase, to express it, like “the Trinity” or “the triune God.” But they have no such term. At most, they speak in ways which are consistent with the existence of a triune God, and they occasionally speak in ways which sort of suggest such (at least, to some readers, such as Matthew 28:19. If such a doctrine were explicitly taught, then we could just quote the verse. But we can’t. (For a long time, some considered 1 John 5:7 to be the needed verse, but no more; basically all scholars have abandoned it, and rightly so.)
So a Trinity theory is going to be, in the best case, a doctrine of inference – one which is not stated by the sources, but which either logically follows from them, or doesn’t logically follow, but best explains them. Maybe the NT writers are committed to trinitarianism but don’t realize it. So, you can pick a Trinity theory, and see if it can either be derived from or best explain what is in the Bible. But while you’re doing that, let’s return to our competing arguments.
Is U2 taught in the Bible? I don’t think any New Testament author thought it needed saying. But it is constantly presupposed by every New Testament author, and according to them, by the Lord Jesus himself.
They all use “Father” (and related phrases) as a singular referring term for the one God, Yahweh. Check all the gospels on this score. And in almost all cases, “God” is supposed to refer to this same one. Particularly striking are the greetings in Paul’s letters – he sends them blessings from “God” or “God our Father” or “our God and Father”, as well as from Jesus. In all these cases, “God” (Greek: “the god”) refers to Yahweh, the one true God of the Old Testament. And that term is being used co-referentially along with “Father” (etc.). This shows that the authors assume that God and the Father are one and the same, numerically one.
But is this same one also also referred to by “Jesus,” “the Lord Jesus,” and such?
No – they all assume that this one who is our God and Father is also the God and Father of Jesus. Hence Peter,
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! (1 Peter 1:3, ESV)
And John,
… our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3, ESV)
John isn’t being redundant here. (e.g. “I know Barack Obama! And also, I know the guy who was president of the USA in 2011!”) Rather, he’s asserting that Christian have personal relationships with God, and with the Son of God.
Back to U2, sometimes it very close to the surface. A famous example is John 17:3 (ESV), where Jesus is praying to God, that is, to the Father (see verse 1):
And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
WWJD? According to John he’d affirm U2. And I think we may take the author of the gospel of John to be teaching that the Father is the one true God here, though he doesn’t assert it in his own voice here.
Another passage where it is clearly assumed that the Father is numerically identical to the one God is in Paul’s discussion of Christians eating food offered to idols. While the peoples of the world believe in various gods and lords,
…yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor 8:6, ESV)
In the first clause here Paul is expressing what we Christians think, and this is analyzable as a conjunction of there claims: (1) there is a God, (2) who is unique, and (3) this is the Father. In logic would break this down using G to mean “is a god,” the letter “f” for the Father, and variables x and y. The analysis is: there is some x such that Gx, and for any y, Gy only if y=x, and x = f. In other words, there is a god, and any god there is just is him, and this is none other than the Father. What would Paul do? He’d affirm U2.
Take it from Jesus, John, and Paul (and the rest of the New Testament authors – check them yourself): U2 is true. And so given that T1 is true, we should accept the second argument as sound.
T1 The Father is not the Trinity.
U2 The Father is God.
U3 Therefore, The Trinity is not God.
If you embrace this argument, you are a unitarian Christian. Some such also believe in a Trinity, in the sense that they believe Father, Son, and Spirit to be three cooperating selves, perhaps all in some sense divine – but they hold that the one true God is a member of the Trinity (the Father), not the whole Trinity. So they – for example, Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, or Samuel Clarke – believe in a Trinity (or more clearly: a triad) but not in a triune God, so they are not trinitarians. Others, like me, would reject this sort of Trinity or triad for various reasons, but in any case, we agree that that our second argument is sound, and that premise T2 is false (making the first argument unsound).
Unfortunately, when it comes to 1 Corinthians 8:6, some readers are confused by the fact that “the Lord” can be used to name the Father, and also Jesus. (More that that ambiguity here.) In Paul, when he’s not quoting the Old Testament, it is normally the latter. (Nothing strange here; any name, term, or title can be equivocal – that is, can, in different contexts, refer to various beings.) But note that Paul here is presupposing here in this very sentence that the one God and the one Lord differ in some way. (“from… through whom”) So we can be sure that he’s not using the terms “God” and “Lord” co-referentially here; he’s rather assuming them to be non-identical, not numerically one.
As with all the other NT authors, for Paul Jesus and God are one (in will, purpose, and rule) but they’re not the same.
If the unitarian jesus is true, so there’s a chance that the unitarian jesus can commit sin, right ?
Yes – it is a clear NT teaching that Jesus was tempted – that is, tempted to sin, even tempted in all ways as we are. That implies that he could have sinned.
If that so, so it means that jesus is sinner like us, right ?
NO, Jesus was not a sinner, Jesus Christ did not inherit sin like every other human. Jesus’ life was transferred pure and sinless into the womb of Mary.
when jesus was born, he is a mere human before his baptism, right ?
do you have a proof that not all men are sinners ?
1) YHWH is a simple being.
2) YHWH is not composed of parts.
3) Nothing that God is, is a part.
4) Therefore, all that YHWH is, just is or is numerically identical with YHWH.
5) The Father is YHWH.
6) The Son is YHWH
7) The Spirit is YHWH.
8) The Father, Son and Spirit are not parts of YHWH.
9) Therefore, the Father, Son and Spirit just are, or are numerically identical with YHWH.
There is no logical problem in the Trinity.
Andrew, this sort of position faces a terrible *scriptural* problem, the fact that the three of them differ from one another, which implies that “they” can’t be one and the same (i.e. numerically identical to one another). Do you really accept that anything which is true, e.g. of the Father is true of the Son, and vice-versa?
Andrew, Jesus himself said the Father is greater than I am at John 14:28, therefore they are not equal. If they are not equal, they cannot be the same person.
Do you have a version which is easier to understand? 🙂
Perhaps an OT angle might make this whole conversation even more interesting.
The Father is not the divine plurality of the OT
The divine plurality of the OT is Yahweh
Therefore the Father is not Yahweh
The Father is not the divine plurality of the OT
The Father is Yahweh
Therefore the divine plurality of the OT is not Yahweh
I am using Michael Heiser’s concept of the divine plurality of Yahweh specifically. I am not referring to divine plurality generally in the OT – angels, heavenly host, demons, foreign gods, etc.
Hi Jeff,
I think in one sense the early guys believe in “the Trinity” and another sense not. I prefer to use Trinity for the triune God (of later orthodoxy) and the trinity for just the group, without prejudice as to whether they are merely a triad or a tri-personal deity. I explain in these posts: https://trinities.org/blog/?s=flocanrib I think it is very important to see that trias / trinity was introducted simply as a plural referring term, after the patter then (2nd c.) popular with Platonists. This is a great source of confusion in theology, and even, yes, with peolpe who do history of theology.
Thanks, Dale, this has been really helpful. One more question for now. As I recall, J.N.D. Kelly refers to the view of the earliest church fathers as “primitive trinity.” Is Kelly’s work flawed or do you just think it’s a misnomer to call those views trinitarian?
Hey Jeff,
No – I guess I pooped out at that point. The next part would be explaining why I’m a “humanitarian” unitarian, and not a subordinationist one like Clarke. This would require several more posts, wherein I explain why I don’t think the arguments for the “pre-existence” of Jesus and his having created the cosmos are convincing, as well as some other concerns about two-natures christologies. Though I’ve taught and thought a fair bit about classical christologies, I’ve yet to really write anything about them. I hope to, God willing, but am trying to finish up some articles and a book on Trinity theories. Also, I’m inclined to think that matters of Trinity are more important. Maybe, God willing, I’ll resume this series some day.
Aha. Is there a part 9? We have more important influences in common than I had realized: J.P., Willard, and the Vineyard nonetheless.
Hello Dale,
You say somewhere on your blog that this post was a good place to start in order to understand your own views. Where to next?
–Jeff
Hi Jeff – perhaps this “evolution” series of posts?
https://trinities.org/blog/?s=evolution+of+my+views
Hi Ben,
There’s quite a lot on this blog. My main reply would be that the NT everywhere assumes and asserts that the Father just is (is identical to) the one God. See my explanation of identity, and my treatment of some important passages here: https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4054 If it is true that “Jesus is divine,” we should ask: in the same sense as the Father? If so, then, it looks like we have two divine beings, two gods. If not (so that Jesus is divine in a different sense than the Father is) I would say that’s compatible with monotheism, rightly understood. We would need to say what it is to be divine in this lesser sense though, that doesn’t imply being a perfect being and the one true God.
Hi Dale,
My default is to understand God as identical to the Trinity. So I reject “Jesus is identical to God(the Trinity)” and “the Father is identical to God (the Trinity)”. That was your T1 statement. So of those three, when people say “Jesus is God” I translate it as “Jesus is divine” to keep things consistent with “Jesus is not the Father”. Any recommended links on this blog given my starting point?
“I’ve always been troubled by the transitivity of the “is of identity” and the statements “Jesus is God”, “The Father is God” and “Jesus is not the Father.”
Thanks for the comment, Ben. I left one over at your blog.
You’ve set out an obviously inconsistent triad of statements here (obvious once we understand that “is” there means “is numerically the same thing as”). Which of the three do you deny?
Just want to say I’m really excited to discover your blog. I love reading PhD bloggers! Thanks. Looking forward to reading more. I’m taking a (distance) seminary Trinity class right now and happy to find some philosophical reflection on these issues.
I’ve always been troubled by the transitivity of the “is of identity” and the statements “Jesus is God”, “The Father is God” and “Jesus is not the Father.” I like how you layed out the argument using the is of identity to keep things clear.
P.S. it’s nice to listen to a music video while typing a comment!
Pingback: William Lane Craig in the Chronicle of Higher Education » trinities
Pingback: Larry Hurtado on early Chrisitans’ worship of Jesus » trinities
James
If you are a shareholder in Face-Book, that does not mean that you ARE Face book – in fact with the exception of the share transfer secretary, they probably never heard of you.
Desperate attempts to drag up relative identity models are futile .
They don’t work for the simple reason that the Trinity is a product of human rationalisation and speculation.
Every Blessing
John
Pingback: trinitarian or unitarian? 7 – Origen uncensored (Dale) » trinities
Hi Dale,
More thought on legal fiction:
The legal fiction concept of legal personality is indispensable for understanding political history. Likewise, the concept of legal personality is indispensable for understanding political concepts in biblical studies that include theological analogy.
The modern concept of legal personality refers to governmental, business, and non-profit entities that have a legal name, rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law. For example, legal persons include sovereign nations, subnational entities, municipalities, universities, banks, and retail stores.
One might point to the intangible nature of law and challenge the existence of legal persons such as sovereign states. For example, so-called sovereign states are not entities, but multitudes of distinct individuals merely act is if there were sovereign states with political officials. Wars are declared and tangibly fought, but no sovereign state ever existed. Emperor Nebuchadnezzar and his subjects merely acted as an emperor and empire. Or in the case of so-called business entities, there are no owners and employees while distinct individuals merely act as owners and employees. A bank and county sheriff merely act as a banking entity foreclosing on a mortgage for a family’s residence while there never was a banking entity, a governmental county, or ownership of property. All sense of governmental and institutional authority is nothing but an illusion.
Such an anti-realist challenge to the existence of sovereign states and business entities appears impossible to formally prove or disprove, but history indicates overwhelming evidence for the existence of sovereign states and business entities. The default assumption of history and politics assumes the existence of sovereign states.
In the context of biblical studies, the concept of legal personality compares to ancient Mediterranean perspectives of politics. The ancient consensus assumed the existence of sovereign states and cities. Also, the biblical writers used political analogies comparable to legal fiction that help to describe God. For example, a primary theme in the Bible describes God as King and Judge, which are concepts illuminated by legal fiction. Likewise, the biblical writers made a precedent for using concepts comparable to legal fiction in analogies of God.
A common complaint about the use of analogies that describe God involves the monotheistic belief that God is eminent beyond comparison. However, analogies by definition involve both similarities and dissimilarities while the use of analogies to teach about God permeate the Bible. For example, biblical analogies of God include comparing God to a flock of birds (Isaiah 31:5) and an unrighteous judge (Luke 18:1–8), which are astonishingly dissimilar to God.
In the case of the general partnership model of relative identity, each general partner *is* the *undivided* authority of the partnership, which is the *particular* authority. Also, legal fiction goes as far as saying that each general partner *is* the partnership. Such an inseparability of owner and business exists only with sole proprietorships and general partnerships, which is why lawyers generally recommend that owners form a limited liability corporation instead of a sole proprietorship or general partnership.
Also, even if we limit the relative identity analogy to multiple partners being the same undivided particular contractual authority, then this provides an analogy of authority in Trinitarian doctrine that also models relative identity: “RI: *x* and *y* and *z* are the same *F* but *x* and *y* and *z* are different *Gs*.” The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one undivided authority while they are different unipersonalities. They are also one undivided substance. In this case, the analogous similarity is the model of triune authority while dissimilarities include divine self-existence of one particular substance versus natural persons forming a general partnership that faces dissolution. However, legal fiction also says that each general partner is the partnership that analogizes the undivided substance of the Trinity.
Disclaimer: this model of relative identity does not prove the respective Trinitarian doctrine but merely supports the metaphysical possibility.
Thank you for your consideration.
Hi James
Ok, that’s great. Since this is a mute point and neither of us is compelled to believe everything the Fathers wrote, I hope IF and WHEN I engage you on the development of the Trinity doctrine these won’t be cited as proof of the trinity having originated in the Bible.
Yes, but I’m completely unconvinced of how the concept of “person” and “being” can be cognitively realised in the operational mind. Not only that, but how this idea was realised in the Hebrew mind, let alone assumed by the ancient Bible writers. You have indeed chosen the safer way out by discussing the philosophical aspects of this invention. Since this is indeed an evolved philosophical idea, I understand why trinitarians are constantly tweaking on its premises. Whether the trinity is truly taught in Scripture is of course the priority of most questioning Christians and should be of highest priority. What your doctrine teaches on what God can and cannot do is of course totally different from WHETHER the God of the Bible has revealed Himself of HAVING done this or that or of BEING what the trinity purports Him(It/Them) to be. With such a human construct you are indeed free to say, “according to this law of this country, this construct can be interpreted and understood they way I explained it,” or, “according to this dictionary of that language and dialect I may use the language I prefer.” You have indeed created your version of God in your image…
Hi Dale,
I have some clearer thoughts about your comment that I quoted above.
First, God is eminent beyond comparison. Biblical writers nonetheless used analogies to *help* explain mysteries about God. God can never be completely explained, but various teachings can *help* to explain mysteries about God. Also, the word “analogy” implies a comparison with similarities and dissimilarities.
Second, divine covenants in the Old Testament were comparable to various ancient Mediterranean political covenants. The Bible is filled with governmental and legal analogies such as Luke 18:1–8 comparing the Lord to an unrighteous judge regardless of how dissimilar an unrighteous judge is to the Lord.
Third, Isaiah 31:5 compares the Lord to a flock of birds hovering overhead regardless of how dissimilar a flock of birds hovering overhead is to the Lord.
Fourth, unless somebody rejects the existence of legal entities and the governmental organizations that make the laws about legal entities, I cannot understand why somebody would reject legal fiction.
If you still reject my analogy, would you please elaborate more to me about your rejection of legal fiction to help analogize God?
Thank you for your consideration.
Hi Jaco,
A lot has been written pro and con about the preexistence of Christ and I do not agree with everything written by every church father. I merely meant that I agree with what the said about three persons and one substance. In this thread, I am not going to comment on all of the cons while I am trying to focus on what Dale said about logic with implications about identity. I have future plans to write more about the preexistence of Christ, but I will pass for now on this thread and focus on logic.
Per grammar, Readers Digest I suppose is an acceptable source of grammar guidelines. I will check what the CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE says about collective nouns, which is what I use for my writing. That could be the one exception to the basic rule that explains what I see all of the time in sports.
In any case, I have no problems with saying: I worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I worship three divine persons who are one indivisible God. And that is true for anybody that holds to a relative identity or mysterious interpretation of the Trinity.
If you accuse me of worshiping three divine persons, then you are correct. If you accuse me of tritheism, then you are wrong and misunderstand relative identity. By the way, I used a formula for relative identity that comes from Harry Deutsch http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-relative/
Per relative identity, I find great meaning in the Father being the one true Most High God while the same is true for the Son and Holy Spirit because the three divine persons are the indivisible one true Most High God.
Please let me know if you have clearer criticism about logic in the case of relative identity.
Hi James
Divine preexistence is not taught in the Bible. Notional preexistence, firmly withing the Jewish understanding of it, yes. But not what you and your church have been teaching proselytes since post-biblical times. The same with the “two natures” invention. How is “nature” conceptually conveyed in the Hebrew mind??? The ousia of Christ was only firmly focussed on post-biblically and formalised in 451 C.E. You’re as erroneous as interpreting African mindsets through Hindu eyes. In every other field of study such an undertaking would land in the garbage bin…
If you say the church Fathers merely synthesized what the Bible taught (synthesized, you’re correct), do you believe every singly word and nuance the Church Fathers taught???
Er…nice little red herring, but wrong again:
Collective nouns are singular if the writer is referring to the group as such, plural if he is referring to the individual persons or things of which the group is composed…[e.g] The council IS insisting on ITS right to enfore the regulation (Meaning the council as a unit.) The council ARE disagreeing as to THEIR authority to enforce the regulation (Meaning that the members disagree among themselves). – Write Better Speak Better, Readers Digest Association Inc.
The problem with you trinitarians is that you each have a personal flavor you add to your cherished doctrine. Since you prefer certain language, you prefer to use the trinity in a certain way…that’s weak. Fact is, that once you all start reasoning consistently the oddities in your invention will become more peculiar to others. The Trinity ARE therefore indeed three being worshipped…
You’re fabricating a scheme where the Father as ALONE God is changed to the Father being ALSO God. And where the Most High God is meaningless, since in the case of Jesus Christ, The Father is even higher than he is…
HI Xavier,
I do not know how to respond to your comment 39 about grammar because the word “tripersonality” is a singular noun.
Hi John,
Per comment 46, sorry that I misunderstood your earlier comment, but I am not presenting a model of unqualified numerical identity. I am presenting a model of relative identity. In a US court of law, a general partner *is* the partnership. All that you say about US general partnerships works within the formula for relative identity I noted in comment 27: “RI: x and y and z are the same F but x and y and z are different Gs.”
Hi James
“NOLA Law for All’ specifically leaves open the possibility of limited liability partnerships.
In my country these are not common – and generally arise when we have a ‘sleeping partner’
I think you are missing my point however, liability of partners is just one aspect of a partnership… and the concept of numerical identity is still applicable to all partnerships.
A partner is not numerically identical with a partnership -since some things are true for one which are not true for the other.
I’ve worked in one -you may ‘read between the lines’ as to its identity,and am familiar with its workings.
Best wishes
John
Hi John,
I hope that you enjoyed your river vacation.
This does not describe general partnerships in the US, which have no limits for personal liability of the general partners. That is why many business owners set up limited liability corporations.
Jaco,
Per comment 36, I sympathize with your analogy. The basic rule is subject/noun agreement while sports writers commonly break that rule. I also break that rule when talking about sports teams, but apart from that, I perhaps never intentionally use a plural verb for a singular noun. I sometimes use a plural pronoun when referring to a singular pronoun that could refer to a male or female. So in that case I use a plural verb for a plural subject that refers to a singular subject.
Hi Jaco,
Per comment 35, the divine preexistence and humanity of Christ is clearly taught in the New Testament. There may have been two nature formula at that time, but the Bible writers taught about both natures. The Church Fathers merely synthesized what the Bible taught about Christ’s human nature and divine nature.
Hi Everybody,
I am getting a lot of replies here. Please forgive if while I am slow to keep up because of many other obligations.
Hi James,
How conducive do you think it is to paste a long list of supposed “proofs” for a cherished doctrine to comprehensive and edifying discussion? I hope you’re not making the mistake of thinking that non-trinitarians cannot and have not completely refuted every single supposed “support” for your post-biblical invention.
I get the impression that you like to be the one dishing out the “proofs” and sabotaging proper dialogue by simply referring back to those “proofs.” I wonder why would anyone do this if they were really convinced of their doctrine…
Maybe you could give 5 of your best shots and we can have a BIBLICAL discussion on whether your trinity invention best explains these texts…
Hi Marge,
I already outlined some of the biblical support for these two points above in comment 28.
Also, in comment 27, I outlined the logic of relative identity that indicates how more than one person can be the one true God.
James
Then how else can the Bible teach something as important is the “tripersonal” and NOT “unipersonal” nature of God?
As one of your own Evangelical scholars notes…
[CAPS MINE]
Hi James
Sorry for the delay in coming back to you.
I have just spent the week on the Zambezi River!
I read the paper you recommended in Nolo Law for All – and find it to be superficial- and unhelpful for your purposes.
Liability for a partnerships debts is only one aspect of a partnership agreement.
A general partnership agreement includes such things as
– profit sharing ratios – a formidable variety of possibilities exist
-amount of input required from each partner -whether financial or effort(one may even have ;sleeping partners’)
-liability of each partner for a partnerships debts – here we have many options – liability may be limited or unlimited, joint, several or joint and several.
-the authority of parners is limited by the terms of the partnership agreement and no individual partner can generally bind the partnership beyond authorised limits. A partner can seldom dispose of the majority of partnership assets without the agreement of all partners in writing.
One cannot say, as you suggest, that a partnership is ‘inseparable’ from ones general interests.
When Mr. Price and Mr. Waterhouse got together in an accounting partnership – the latter was quite distinct from each of them. The only thing one can say is the each was probably jointly and severally liable for the debts of the partnership.
Dale has gone to great lengths to discuss the concept of numerical identity – and I will suggest that a partner in a partnership is not identical to the partnership for the very reason that there are some things about one
are not true of the other.
For similar reasons, a member of a ‘set’ is not numerically identical to the set
To date I have not encountered any analogies which resonate with the doctrine of the trinity
Best Wishes
John
James,
But your concorde still needs to be grammatical. I can, for instance, say that the rugby team, The Sharks, IS a good team if I refer to the compound construct. If, however, I want to focus on the plurality of the construct and refer to the players, I can say, The Sharks ARE fit and ready for the Cup.
So, linguistically, you should have no qualms stating that the Trinity are love or that the Trinity are one. But I know that plurality is a buggar. I mean, if we can say, There’s the royal couple, let’s greet THEM, you should also be able to say (rather painfully though), We worship the Trinity, so let’s pray to THEM.
You can’t have your cake and eat it, sorry.
Hi Xavier,
Per comment 33, English grammar does not change because theology is unitarian or trinitarian. For example, the following words are singular nouns regardless of theology differences:
1. God
2. Trinity
3. congregation
And the following words are plural nouns regardless of theology differences:
1. gods
2. trinities
3. congregations
Here are some examples of grammatically correct sentences:
1. God is love.
2. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are love.
3. The Trinity is love.
4. This blog focuses on theories or trinities.
5. The congregation is an expression of God’s love.
6. The members of the congregation are an expression of God’s love.
Hi James
Oh no, this is most certainly inaccurate. There was no cultural or linguistic conceptual frames present in the Hebraic world to even think in such terms. The “two natures” formula had to wait for the fifth century and a new epistemology from an alien Roman/Greek culture to even allow for such a concept that would otherwise have been rejected as an absurdity. Your statement above is therefore as erroneous as stating that the Post-exilic Jews of the 6th century BC were Mormons…for the very same reasons.
What the ancient Jew understood under “preexistence” and what the Hellenized church and its Fathers later came to formulate were again two totally different ideas. Notional preexistence not in history but in preeminence is utterly different from personal, conscious, ontological pre-human existence.
Something as philosophically loaded as the “orthodox” Trinity invention REQUIRES more than just definitions. It requires a different epistemological frame, new conceptual definitions of abstract terms as well as elaborate articulations of how one God can be three. Your claim above is wishful at best and to imply that a multipersonal one God was a casual assumption by the strict Jewish monotheist is a monstrous absurdity.
Jaco
I appreciate Harriet Baber’s honesty. She said, quite frankly, that the Trinity is not in the Bible. I agree with her.
The word “God” can be used either to IDENTIFY or to DESCRIBE. Let’s reword these four statements so that there is no ambiguity.
1. There is one and only one God.
2. The one God is the Father (true: see John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; etc.)
3. The one God is the Son (false – nothing in the Bible to support that)
4. The one God is the Holy Spirit (false – nothing in the Bible to support that, either)
According to the biblical evidence, the one and only God is the Father, and no one else.
James
The Bible is not a glossary but it should AT LEAST be able to teach us that God is tripersonal.
Okay how about this one: Why do you use unitarian language when talking about your tripersonal God? i.e., “God ARE love” instead of “God IS love”; “Gods created” instead of “God created”, etc.
Hi Xavier,
Please review my above brief outline to see biblical teachings on the Lord’s tripersonality. The Bible never included a glossary of definitions but taught about the interpersonal relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Hi Jaco,
The human nature and the preexistent divine nature of Christ were not alien concepts but clear New Testament teachings that are partially outlined in my above notes.
James
Could you just answer one simple question please?
Where in the Bible is God defined as “tripersonal”, as you say? i.e., God = Father, Son, HS?
Alien construct based on alien epistemology from cultural frames unknown to the ancient Jew and Jewish Christian. The difficulties and outright refutations to the Orthodox trinity only stimulate the indoctrinated believer in it to ASSUME the trinity and then to reinterpret and elaborate on this doctrine with all kinds of fabricated add-ons. “Two natures,” preexistence and other doctrines emerge, and history, culture, theology and language simply become redundant and reinterpreted…all to vindicate an post-biblical invention…
Here are brief notes on biblical verses that support the belief in the Trinity.
The Old Testament (OT) has many verses that teach that there only one God and God is alone (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6), which is an intricate part of trinitarian belief. All scriptures that teach that God is one or alone support the belief in the Trinity.
The OT teaches about the Father, your Creator (Deuteronomy 32:6).
The OT teaches about the Son who is the Messiah. For example, Messianic Prophecy in Zechariah 14 teaches that the Lord will stand on the Mountain of Olives. And Messianic Prophecy in Daniel 7:13-14 describes the Messiah with the Ancient of Days who is the Father.
The OT teaches about the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Psalm 51:11, Isaiah 63:10-11).
Matthew 4:10 teaches that we should worship the Lord your God alone; Matthew 14:33 and 28:9 teach that the apostles worshiped Jesus; Matthew 26:42 describes Jesus praying to the Father; and Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 teach that Jesus has a God.
John 5:16-19 teaches that the Father never works without the Son and that the Father and Son are equal.
No human has seen God except the only Son of God who himself is God. John 1:18 TNIV, “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only [Son], who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”
The New Testament (NT) teaches that Christ created all rulers and authorities in heaven and earth (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-20).
Isaiah 44:6 says that the Lord Almighty is the first and the last, and apart from the Lord Almighty there is no God.
Revelation 21:6 says that God is the Alpha (first) and the Omega (last), the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:12-13 says that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Matthew 1:18-20, 3:11, 12:32, and 28:19 teach about the Holy Spirit while implying that the Holy Spirit is a person.
Mark 1:8, 3:29, 12:36, and 13:11 teach about the Holy Spirit while implying that the Holy Spirit is a person.
Luke 3:21-22 shows the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together.
John 14:14, 26; 15:26; 16:7 teach that the Holy Spirit is a person.
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 and 13:14 teach that the Lord is the Spirit of God/Holy Spirit.
The Son incarnated to die for the sins of humans (1 Corinthians 15:3) and to be an example of submitting to God and overcoming temptation (Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8). And as I noted earlier, the Son has a God (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34).
All of these Bible teachings fit together. As we see from the verses above, the Bible teaches the following: there is one Lord God; the Father is God; the Son who is the one and only is God; the Holy Spirit is God; the three persons of God are one God; the three persons of God have equal authority in regards to eternal origin; the three persons of God revealed themselves in a hierarchal order to help teach humans about authority and submission; all other persons are created by the partnership of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Hi Xavier, this post summarizes the analogy and I might think of more qualifications depending on relevant question. Philosophical challenge of Trinitarian doctrine includes balancing the following:
1. There is one God.
2. The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God.
3. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
This doctrine implies that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons yet the same God with numerically identical authority and abilities. This doctrine also holds to monotheism while excluding tritheism and modalism. However, if these three claims also insist upon a rigid concept of identity, then any combination of two respective claims logically excludes the remaining claim: claims 1 and 2 exclude 3; claims 1 and 3 exclude 2; and claims 2 and 3 exclude 1.
In response to this conundrum of identity and logic, various philosophers propose relative identity strategies for understanding the ontology of the Trinity.* This model compares some aspects of the Trinity to a general partnership. In this case, the partners analogize the divine persons revealed as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while the partnership analogizes the Trinity.
This model of relative identity and the Trinity look at the above teachings:
1. There is one God.
2. The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God.
3. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
Considering an extended formula for relative identity:
RI: x and y and z are the same F but x and y and z are different Gs
In this case, x is the Father, y is the Son, z is the Holy Spirit, F is God, and Gs are the divine unipersonalities. Likewise, Trinitarian doctrine exemplifies the formula for relative identity while the Trinity is an undivided entity.
The concept of divine personhood or selfhood faces challenge for any orthodox Christian model of the Trinity. For example, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the exact same type of person while the tripersonal Trinity is not the exact same type of person as the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. In one context, the Trinity is a person with three centers of personhood. Regardless of the awkwardness, this requires two distinct but related contexts of the words person and self: (1) unipersonal and (2) tripersonal.
Qualifications of the analogy include:
1. Business partnerships can be cold-hearted and impersonal while God is always personal.
2. General partnerships are legally created by persons and face dissolution while the essence of the Trinity is self-existent and indisolvable.
3. All general partnerships form by separate persons who legally unite to form a partnership while the Trinity has always been one entity.
4. General partners typically have a private life apart from the partnership business while the persons of the Trinity never exist apart from being God.
5. General partners might see with a disunited point of view while the persons of the Trinity always see with a united point of view.
*Michael C. Rea, “Relative Identity and the Doctrine of the Trinity,” Philosophia Christi, 5(2) (2003), 431–45.
James
So where does the “disimilarities/similarities” stop and end with your legal construct?
And can you please show us where God is “tripersonal” in the scriptures? i.e., God = Father, Son, HS.
john says: July 1, 2012 at 10:32 pm:
Hi John,
You do not understand business law in the US that is similar to respective business law in various other nations. I’ll focus on the US law because I understand it better than law in other nation.
When a natural person becomes a sole proprietor or general partner, then he/she becomes the entire authority of his/her sole proprietorship or general partnership and is inseparable from his/her business. This is unlike any other type of business entity and for this reason lawyers generally recommend that business owners form other types of business entities that separate the owners from their businesses, for example, limited liability corporations.*
“Are owners of a partnership personally liable for business debts?,” Nolo, accessed July 4, 2012, http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/partnership-faq-29130-5.html
Xavier says on July 1, 2012 at 4:05 pm:
No Xavier. All analogies by definition include both similarities and dissimilarities. The Trinity is in no way impersonal but tripersonal.
Oh, yes, I’ve yet another one to add: wishful Universalists trying to reinterpret ancient types and prophecies in which annihilation and destruction would this time (eschatologically) actually result in universal salvation of the antichrist and Satan and Marilyn Manson. LOL!!!
I’ve just read this article:
http://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/03/simple-divine-partnership-and.html
I’d love to write a critique on this and probably will. There are a few things that slap me silly and is a mere display of human nature trying to ease the discomfort of cognitive dissonance: among them are Flat-earthers trying to prove their theory “scientifically,” King James Onlyists trying to prove the superiority of the horrendous KJV and (wait for it!)…trinitarians trying to harmonise their contradictions with all kinds of fancy and falsely analogical explanations. My goodness, even quantum physics is used to “confirm” an ancient Fourth-century invention. Marx was correct on one point: religion is a powerful opium…
Xavier has hit the nail on the head – regardless of how someone might explain the Trinity or come up with reasonable sounding analogies, the question remains to be answered – “where does the Bible teach this?”
Andy
No, I don’t agree with this. A and B does not equal C it leads to C. A is therefore NOT the entire authority of C, neither is B. Only in combination does A and B lead to C. And even if A equalled C and B equalled C, just because Peter = Company and John = Company does not mean Peter and John are identical (A = B). “Equals to” does not necessarily mean “identical to.”
I also agree with john above, namely that there are trinitarian CONSTRUCTS or depictions of relations. In themselves such depictions – however bizarre – can be quite intriguing. What we do find, though, is that the classical Trinitarian depictions of God are mere attempts to overcome inherent contradictions in the constructs, are formulated using a biblically alien epistemology and what emerge are certainly misfits to the rich biblical depictions of God.
An inferior construct artificially kept alive by politics.
James
I think it was Bishop Gregory of Nyssa who said that the three hypoistases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit were not ‘objective fact’ but ‘terms we use’ to express how the ‘unnameable and unspeakable divine nature ‘ (ousia) adapts itself to the limitations of human minds.
In other words the Trinity is a CONSTRUCT – but NOT an objective reality … words we use to accept what is otherwise a ‘mystery’.
A partnership is a legal CONSTRUCT.
The persons who binds themselves to a contract of partnership do NOT become the partnership.
Partners act according to the authority which is contained within the terms of the Deed of Partnership.
The same applies in the case of a Corporation.
A corporation is a ‘legal personna’ but if you were a shareholder in General Motors there is no way that you could claim to be General Motors.!
Hope this helps
Every Blessing
John
James
So are you saying that the God of the Bible should be understood as an impersonal “corporation/company” made up of 3 “partners”? If so, can you provide scriptural evidence where this is so? i.e., where God is a “What/It” as opposed to a “Who/He”?
Dale,
The law does not make the general partners *merely act* as the authority of that partnership, but the law makes them *be* the authority of that partnership. In other words, the general partners do not *merely act* as the entire authority, but each general partner *is* the entire authority.
If you disagree with me on this first critical point, then we can focus more on it. But if you agree with me on this, then we can look at the next step of understanding how this model helps to explain Trinitarian doctrine.
HEADACHE!! : /
Hi Dale
Apart from rigid application of numerical identity, there is no problem with theories of the Trinity that state the following: there is one true God; the Father is the one true God; the Son is the one true God; the Holy Spirit is the one true God; the Father is not the Son or Holy Spirit while the Son is not the Holy Spirit. For example, this structure is comparable with relative identity in United States general partnerships.
General partnerships are made of general partners who are inseparable from the partnership while each general partner “is” the entire contractual authority of the partnership.
For illustration, two natural persons form a general partnership. The respective names of the general partners are A and B while the name of the partnership is C. Likewise, A is the entire authority of C and B is the entire authority of C. In other words, A equals C and B equals C. In this case, syllogism indicates that if A equals C and B equals C, then A equals B. In one sense, A and B are inseparable from C. But in another sense, A and B are different natural persons while absolute identity and syllogism fail to delineate A, B, and C.
Hi James,
Numerical identity is what it is – I don’t understand your complaint that it is being rigidly applied. It is important to reason carefully about it.
Your example of two partners being able to act with the authority of their company… I just don’t see what this has to do with Trinity theories. This power doesn’t make either of them *be* that corporation. The God of the Bible is a perfect self, not at all akin to a legal fiction like a corporation.
Hi Dale,
Very busy weekend with no time for the internet, so forgive my somewhat tardy response to your weekend posts—you wrote:
>>Hi David – those weren’t 5 forms of trinitarianism, but rather 5 attempts (4 I argue failed) to give a non-controversial definition of “trinitarian.” The one I accept:
Definition 5: someone who believes that the one God in some sense eternally consists of three equally divine “persons,” namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.>>
Thanks for the clarification. I am not convinced that Trinitarianism can be limited to your above definition, and I say this primarily for the reason that a number of early proponents of the Trinity clearly did not adhere to it. As you probably know, the Greek term for the English word “Trinity” and Latin “Trinitas” is trias, which simply means “three”. Beginning the with Theophilus (the first CF to use the term with reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit), the “Trinity” is composed of the one God (i.e. the Father), His Word (i.e. the Son) and His Wisdom (i.e. Holy Spirit). This is THE Trinitarian ‘formula’ until the late 4th century, but by no means disappears when the monarchy of God the Father is replaced the divine essence.
John Behr (Dean of St Vladimir’s Seminary and Professor of Patristics) has an excellent presentation on the Trinity that falls in line with Theophilus’ initial formula:
http://solzemli.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/the-trinity-scripture-and-the-greek-fathers-by-fr-john-behr/
Grace and peace,
David
Harriet
Bishop Gregory of Nyssa has commented that the three hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not objective facts but ‘terms we use’ to express how the ‘un-nameable and unspeakable divine nature’ (ousia) adapts itself to the limitations of human minds
In other words the Trinity is not an objective reality but a construct, or ‘words we use’ to accept what is otherwise a mystery.
Trinitarians therefore adopt a ‘fall-back’ position and avoid the real issues .
Instead of getting out of the hole they had dug themselves -they just kept digging.
And they continue to do so today.!
Understanding this is a job for the Behavioural Scientists, rather than Theologians!
Blessings
John
This link should work: home.sandiego.edu/~baber/research/filioque.pdf
About the argument I do reject T1 as unqualified since I claim that “Father” is systematically ambiguous. Suppose there exists a divine being distinct from, but in some manner intimately related to, the Trinity. I hold that “Father” refers to this being in some contexts but in other to the Trinity. Consequently I can accept both T2 and U2 holding that in the later “Father” refers to the Trinity.
Two metatheological points about what I want to do. (1) I want to avoid metaphysical commitments: I want to see what we can do to make the talk come out right while insofar as possible remaining neutral between Arianism, Nicene Orthodoxy, Modalism or anything between the cracks, Trinitarian or “Christian Unitarian.” (2) I don’t have the slightest doubt that the NT doesn’t contain any doctrine of the Trinity, or that Paul and Jesus himself were Unitarians. However I don’t recognize the Bible as authoritative and I’m not terribly interested in it theologically because it has no coherent theology. I’m a right proper heretic. I’m interested in looking at the the various accounts that were spun out later, by the Fathers, in councils, by people who, unlike the NT writers, had serious metaphysical interests.
So, of course my line on systematic ambiguity has no source in Scripture. I don’t care because I have no interested in Scripture. I just want to see what I can do to explain and justifiy religious talk and practice, that is churchy stuff, with the least possible metaphysical baggage.
Dale
Just a few trivia!
You said ” –assert that the Father is the one true God here , although He doesn’t assert it in his own voice here.”
I think he does -see verse 1 ” Father the hour has come…”
You said ” Unfortunately when it comes to 1 Cor 8v6 some readers are confused by the fact that “Lord” can be used to name the Father and also Jesus”
Absolutely- The scripture was written after AD51 by which time the resurrected Christ had been “elevated’ to “Lord and Messiah”. This aspect permeates Peter and Pauls writings
The writer of post 6 referred to the use of the word ‘elohim’ .
As you know it is a plural word -but can be used to denote important (single) persons
In some cases the word ‘elohim’ is used to describe the “Heavenly Council’ which is alluded to elsewhere
In Psalm 82 we see YHWH presiding over the Heavenly Council -and addressing the ‘gods’ -i.e. those to whom the law was given’
I concurr with Andy – Christ may be called elohim/theos without being YHWH, -or even a member of the Trinity.
It’s sad – but so many of us were ‘on board’ when people were talking about the Godhead’ – but the evangelicals opened up the whole ‘can of worms’ by insisting that “Christ is God” I fear they will ultimately pay for this error!
Blessings
John
One additional thought: I realize that applying consistent definitions about who is trinitarian and unitarian is controversial. Still, clear thinking requires clear speaking. And I claim my definitions are principled and non-arbitrary and non-polemical. If there are better ones, do tell.
Just googled up the statement of faith from I think the biggest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention:
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
I don’t see any escape clause there for Christians who identify the one true God with the Father, and so don’t believe in a tripersonal God.
Looking at the Roman Catholic catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm
Tripersonal God? Check. Equally divine? Check. Identifying God with the Father (and not also with the others.) No way, Jose.
Finally, a popular recent American Orthodox website:
http://biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/cathholy.htm
I think it is common to find this sort of claim side by side with the claim that the Father is the “font of divinity”… I agree, there probably is a difference in the Orthodox tradition here due to their emphasis on those ancient sources. Still, they agree with the requirement of three persons within the one God, even if they’re unclear about the equally divine requirement.
Hi Harriet,
Thanks for your comment. BTW that link is broken.
Yes, I think, about Constantine. It is a sort of propaganda that Nicea is the big watershed that theologically changed everything; it demonstrably was not. But the catholic movement did eventually rally around the key term.
I have to say, I’m suspicious of the claim that “Father” is systematically ambiguous. I just don’t see that in the NT at all, and suspect that any ambiguity one finds there to be a shadow cast by a later theory.
I wonder – is this another variant of the hoary qua-move – i.e. God-as-God vs. God-as-revealed ?
Finally, based on your theory, what do you think is the right response to the arguments in my post?
Hi David – those weren’t 5 forms of trinitarianism, but rather 5 attempts (4 I argue failed) to give a non-controversial definition of “trinitarian.” The one I accept:
Definition 5: someone who believes that the one God in some sense eternally consists of three equally divine “persons,” namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Whereas, the definition of Christian unitarian I offer is:
a unitarian Christian would be defined as an Abrahamic unitarian who accepts the this one true God’s Messiah is the man Jesus.
where an Abraham unitarian is:
someone who believes that the one God just is (i.e. is numerically identical to) a certain self, namely the Father, and not to any other self.
So, as I understand you, by these definitions you are a Christian unitarian, even though you believe in the (derived) deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And you are not a trinitarian on two counts, one, that the one God is not tri-personal, two that your divine persons are not equally divine, for the Son and Spirit are divine because of the Father, but not (like him) through themselves (i.e. independently).
You’re what I call a (non-“Arian”) subordinationist unitarian, which views much like Origen or Clarke.
I can well understand why you want to retain the label “trinitarian” – there are very strong social pressures to do so. Clarke did too. But I do think the term is abused when applied to folks who don’t believe in a tri-personal God.
Dave wrote “First, I believe the Bible uses the term “God” in different senses.”
Indeed, it’s worth noting that in Ps 8:5 “Yet you have made him a little lower than ?the heavenly beings?” (ESV) the heavenly beings are the Hebrew word Elohim, literally God or gods. Yet LXX and Heb 2:7 translate the Psalm as “a little lower than ANGELS” (or Heb 2:7 quotes the LXX directly, but agrees with the Greek translation of the Psalm)
Why interesting? Because people today tend to think of the term ‘God’ as only applying to the Supreme Being, and anyone else using that term for themself must be an imposter. And then this is anachronistically applied to the Bible accounts and so they see God as either meaning the True God or a false God. Ergo, when Jesus is called ‘God’, as he isn’t a false god he must be The True God and so God just has to be a Trinity. But that is false reasoning.
I agree with Dale that Dunn, in his ‘Did the first century Christians Worship Jesus?’ is all over the place with his argumentation, and especially in his conclusions, as he desperately tries to draw a different conclusion from the one staring him in the face. But I do think he is right when he states that the Jews and early Christians were not monotheists in the sense we use today; rather they were monolatruists in that they believed in many beings that were properly called el, elohim, theos but believed that only one of them was to be worshipped, only one of them was the Creator, only one of them was YHWH, the True God.
If Angels are Elohim, then Jesus can be an Elohim/Theos without being YHWH or a member of a trinity.
I’ve argued that “Father” is systematically ambiguous http://philpapers.org/rec/BABTFA so that we can have our cake and eat it. In theological contexts, i.e. when we talk about inter-trinitarian relations like begetting and proceeding it refers to the Trinity in toto–the Godhead; in economic contexts, concerning God’s relations to the world it refers to a Trinitarian Person, God qua unknown, God in his primary subjectivity or whatever. This is the kind of strategy often adopted for getting out of identity puzzles: claim the problem is really reference. This goes for a range of issues from Kripke on contingent identity statements to stage theorists’ claim that expressions that purport to refer to temporally extended individuals refer ambiguously to stages. And my aim is to get a metaphysically minimalist account of the Trinity exploiting this move.
I’m writing a book, I am. And my notion is to look at Trinitarian “heresies” as well as “orthodoxy.” I think you’re right though that historiclly until the 5th century most Christians were not strictly Trinitarians. Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia, right?
It seems that the Greek font did not work in my above post; “(????)” is theos, and (? ????) is ho theos.
Hello again Dale,
Thanks for responding. You wrote:
>>If the divine nature is what is essential to (and sufficient for) being a God, and three different beings in the same sense have that (universal) nature, then they would for that reason be three Gods. f would be a God, but the s and h would be two additional ones. So f would not be *the only* or *the one* God.>>
First, I believe the Bible uses the term “God” in different senses. Second, I maintain that (as with the Bible and early CFs), “there is but one God, the Father”, and though the Son shares the Fathers nature by derivation, it is the Father alone who is autotheos, making Him and Him alone “the one God” of the Bible.
I found the follow quote from the Orthodox theologian John Behr to be very helpful on this issue:
>> For the Christian faith there is, unequivocally, but one God, and that is the Father: “There is one God the Father.” For Basil, the one God is not the one divine substance, or a notion of “divinity” which is ascribed to each person of the Trinity, nor is it some kind of unity or communion in which they all exist; the one God is the Father. But this “monarchy” of the Father does not undermine the confession of the true divinity of the Son and the Spirit. Jesus Christ is certainly “true God from true God,” as the Nicene Creed puts it, but he is such as the Son of God, the God who is thus the Father. If the term “God” (????) is used of Jesus Christ, not only as a predicate, but also as a proper noun with an article (? ????), this is only done on the prior confession of him as “Son of God, and so as other than “the one God” of whom he is the Son; it is necessary to bear in mind this order of Christian theology, lest it collapse in confusion.” (John Behr, The Formation of Christian Theology – Volume 2: The Nicene Faith – Part 2, pp. 307, 308.)>>
Dale: >> I would be very interested in your comments on my recent posts on the definitions of “trinitarian” and “Christian unitarian.” Which are you? Or, do you have a counterexample to either one?>>
I hold to a form of Trinitarianism not mentioned in your thread on “Defining the concept of a trinitarian”. The 5 forms you mentioned are basically variations of the ‘traditional Latin/Western’ view, a tradition I reject. In one of the threads that is contained in the link I provided in my first comment, I give the reader “5 propositions” that I hold to, which are foundational to my understanding of theology proper.
Sincerely hope I have been of some assistance in this matter…
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Dale,
I think it prudent to point out that one can believe in a Trinitarian concept AND accept the following that you posted:
>>T1 The Father is not the Trinity.
U2 The Father is God.
U3 Therefore, The Trinity is not God.>>
In the Greek/Eastern ‘tradition’ there has been a consistent appeal to the monarchy of God the Father (i.e. “the one God” is God the Father, not the Trinity), without denying the Nicene formula. The threads at THIS LINK, will hopefully prove be useful in clarifying this position.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
I agree that the “one essence” claim, as originally (vaguely) meant IS compatible with thinking that the Father is identical to the one true God. But this just shows that the bishops signing that creed need not have been (and I think probably mostly were not) trinitarians. I think it is a mistake to think that it is sufficient for being a trinitarian that one affirms the Nic creed, because one could sign on to it and not believe in a triune/tripersonal God.
I take it that the point in 325 was to emphasize the similarity of f & s, in a vague way whose chief virtue was that the “Arians” would not sign on. But I think the intended meaning had sharpened by 380/1, in part based on what the Capp fathers say.
If the divine nature is what is essential to (and sufficient for) being a God, and three different beings in the same sense have that (universal) nature, then they would for that reason be three Gods. f would be a God, but the s and h would be two additional ones. So f would not be *the only* or *the one* God.
I would be very interested in your comments on my recent posts on the definitions of “trinitarian” and “Christian unitarian.” Which are you? Or, do you have a counterexample to either one?
Comments are closed.