Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
Apologists, this episode is for you. Some of you hold a Trinity theory which will clearly be incoherent unless relative identity theory is true. In this episode, I explain the concept of (numerical) identity, the basic idea behind Catholic analytic philosopher Peter Geach’s relative identity theory, and how all of this applies to Trinity theories. It will help you to start to consider whether or not relative identity is a price you’re willing to pay.
Along the way I discuss this argument, which I think we should agree must be unsound. But the question is: Why? (Most philosophers agree that it is obviously valid.)
- The Father just is God.
- The Son just is God.
- Therefore, the Son is the Father (and vice-versa).
And in the last segment I discuss this challenging argument, which interestingly, both me and some trinitarians would say is sound (i.e. it is valid and the premises are true, so the conclusion is true too).
- The Father and the Son have simultaneously and/or timelessly differed. (theological and biblical premise)
- Nothing can either simultaneously or timelessly be and not be some way. (self-evident premise)
- Therefore, Father and the Son are not numerically one thing. (1,2)
- For any a and any b, and any type of thing F, a and b are the same F only if a and b are numerically one thing. (self-evident premise)
- Therefore, the Father and the Son are not the same god. (3, 4)
But what do you say about this argument? That’s the point.
(In this episode I don’t discuss Brower’s and Rea’s sort of non-Geachian relative identity theory, on which see this.)
Links for this episode:
- Identity
- “Trinity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Peter van Inwagen, “Not by Confusion of Substance But by Unity of Person,” “And Yet They Are Not Three Gods But One God”
- the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity
- On Numerical Sameness / Identity / “Absolute” Identity
- podcast 28 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 2
- podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1
- podcast 231 – Swinburne’s Social Theory of the Trinity
- This week’s thinking music is “Two Pianos” by Stefan Kartenberg.
Lol, Kevin. You haven’t addressed any of the premises and or shown how the conclusions don’t follow. Good day indeed.
Grace and peace
” Love, of course, is eternal because God IS Love”
is the father love?
god the omniscient one is god the powerful one
god the father one is not god the son one
god the father one is in relationship with god the son one
this is complexity. trinitarians are worshipping “unified relationship” which contains distinctions
this is complexity
Hi Dale,
The answer is a creator/creature distinction. There are fundamental differences between the Creator and the creature that must be acknowledged and taken into account before pinning the Triune Deity to a philosophical concept like absolute and relative identity. I think if the Triune God was a finite being, you would be right. However, He is infinite and your argument is not applicable.
Divine Simplicity is fundamental here. If God has no parts, then all that He is, is absolute. What logically follows is that the attributes of God are identical to Him. Meaning, God and His attributes are interchangeable terms. God doesn’t merely comport with some abstract concept called “goodness” (no such thing exists), “goodness” just is God Himself. God is absolutely Good, Wise and Love; and Goodness, Wisdom and Love are identical to God. Let’s reformulate the argument.
1) God is identical with Goodness.
2) God is identical with Wisdom.
3) Therefore, Goodness is identical with Wisdom.
Do you see the problem? Nothing in creation is absolutely anything that it is, where the eternal God is absolutely everything that He is. That implies that God is just one thing (a “super property” for Plantinga) because absoluteness and simplicity imply absolute singularity. However, there are clear internal distinctions within the divine essence as there are many attributes that aren’t unqualifiedly identical. God is absolutely Father, Son and Spirit and each is identical with the divine essence. Despite not being unqualifiedly identical with each other, each person is fully identified with the divine Being.
Granted, I’m assuming the persons are fully divine. My purpose is to show that as long as the full deity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit holds up biblically, there is no logical problem in saying that the Father, Son and Spirit are the same eternal, singular Deity (God). All that is in God is identical to God, despite not being unqualifiedly identical with each other. That is true of the attributes, it is true of the persons. (I would love to engage more fully on this. It would make a good episode 🙂 )
In Christ,
Andrew
Andrew:
Does this include angels. After all they to are referred to as Elohim Psalms 8.5 Ps 82.1-6; John 10.34. So are the judges of then nation of Israel. I don’t see the need to conspire an absolute equality of divine essence because in a few places Jesus is referred to as theos. Jesus had a God. The Father was Jesus’ God Jo 17.1-3; Jo 20.17. YHWH was Jesus’ God. Micah 5.4 Also full deity or full divinity is no more conclusive than to say that you and I are fully human or possess full humanity. I do believe the text in Ps. 8.5 is speaking of angelos as Elohim in a representative sense, even though in some cases it is used that way, Exodus 7.1 or with the judges of Isreal, but with angelos of Ps 8 as essence or being godlike in nature. Possessing all the qualities making one to be a god in essence. Some may scream polytheism here, but really this understanding of Elohim and Theos is quite natural in the Scriptures and did not breach monotheism.
I also think, if I understand you correctly, that you are somehow equating qualities of YHWH with his being. I really do not see that in the Biblical text.
Thanks for your thoughts;
Dokimazo
Sorry it should read angelos as Elohim not in a representative sense
Hi Dokimazo. I understand all of your arguments and agree that they should be addressed. However, they aren’t relevant to my post. I was merely saying that if the three persons are full Deity, there is no logical problem with calling them “the same God” because of the qualities of the eternal Being.
How is that any different than us humans who share the same basic attributes, yet we are not “the same human”?
What you are doing, it seems to me, is making God into a classification. All beings who have your particular list of attributes, regardless of the source of the attributes, are therefore in the “God” category, and are therefore God. This is no different to me than the polytheistic Greek person who considered Zeus, Saturn, and Mars to be deities because they each possessed attributes of the classification of deities.
Hi Kevin. You are incorrect. Humans don’t have absolute attributes. I am “good” only if I comport with a standard that is outside of myself, namely God. God does no such thing because He doesn’t comport with “goodness”, He just is Good. God and goodness are identical.
The pagan deities aren’t a good analogy in this context because they are finite creatures who can be both evil and good. God can only be good because He is absolutely “good”.
You are still making God to be a category. The only thing different is that God is a category of absolute attributes.
God (the person, not the category) has attributes of mercy, grace, love, forgiveness, jealousy and even anger. Does someone evil need to exist for God the person to exercise His attributes of jealousy, anger, mercy, grace, and forgiveness? No. Attributes describe what something or someone is at a particular time. An attribute does not have to be in action for it to exist.
In the Bible, God constantly is a He, not a list of attributes. Deut. 4:39-4- “Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other. So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments…” Yes, this “He” has attributes that He displays from time to time, but He is not constructed by means of attributes. God is first and foremost a HE.
Andrew;
Thanks for your thoughts. Do you then see a difference between beingness and personhood? If so where is this supported in the Biblical text? Do you purport that there is only one being ‘God’ but three persons making up that one God. If so where is that found in the Scriptures? And if you say that the category of Godhood consist of 3 persons then what about the other biblical text that show there are others that either in a representative sense are called Gods or in substance or make-up are called Gods. There may be many Gods but only one El Shadai –Almighty God. I never see him broken up into different persons.
Again I don’t want to confuse being called God in a representative sense thus mistaking a representative ‘Shalach’ of YHWH or God with his being which is often done. Jesus is called “the exact representative of his very being.” Yet a representative. Not the being himself. Hebrews 1.3
Hi Dokimazo. I see a difference in being and person. In think the difference is self evident in that not all “beings” have the attribute of “personhood”. Trees are exist things (beings), but aren’t persons. No bible verse needed.
The reason the Son and Spirit are not merely God in a representative sense is that each are eternal and Creator.
Andrew;
So then God as a being does not have personal attributes. So when the Bible speaks of God then personhood is only ascribed to it when Father…Son… or Holy Spirit are attached to this substance. I’m trying to understand your position. So God in the text must be assumed to be the Trinity if not where is it used that way?
As far as Son being Creator, I only see him used in this way in a passive sense. The Greek word dia (through) being used in connection with the Son. 1 Cor. 8.5,6 Jo.1.3
see “A Manual Grammar of Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey under The Passive With Intermediate Agent.”
Here they show that, “God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the logos as the intermediate agent.”
Still where does the Bible separate personhood with beingness in relation to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Hi Dokimazo. I’m not sure what you are asking in the first comment. As far as the ‘passive agency’ is concerned at 1 Cor 8:6, that is exactly wrong. The preposition is from the genitive case and is thus describing active agency. However, and supposed significance in the difference between source and agent doesn’t solve the unitarian conundrum. We are talking about “all things”. Unitarianism hinges on Jesus being among the “all things”, but if Jesus is the active agent of all creation, He isn’t a creation, and thus Creator.
As I said before, the bible doesn’t have to declare the difference between being and person, it’s self evident.
“but if Jesus is the active agent of all creation”
“active” as in something not controlled but performing an action by itself ? are the actions of the son and the father identical or different?
not only is the son a separate person but he performs actions which do not seem to be identical to the fathers.
Hi Kevin. I’ll try and boil this down. As I admitted in my original post, I’m assuming the full deity of the Son and the Spirit. Dale’s argument is a philosophical argument that essentially says, “If the Son and Spirit are God/deity, then they are different gods than the Father by virtue of the law of identity.” I say, “No. Since the eternal God is not composed of parts (simple), nothing in His Being is a ‘part’. If God is Father, Son and Spirit, and all are eternal deity, then none is a ‘part’ of God, but is ‘all’ of God. Nor can there be more than one infinite being because there can’t be more than one infinite thing. It would be contradictory.” I just made a case for what the Triune God is, a simple being that is wholly Father, Son and Spirit; and what He is not, three different gods. It is a logically sound argument that makes perfect sense. Here it is:
1) God isn’t composed of parts.
2) The Father, Son and Spirit are God.
3) Therefore, the Father, Son and Spirit aren’t parts of God.
4) The Triune persons aren’t parts of God.
5) Therefore, the Father, Son and Spirit are equally all of God.
1) There cannot be more than one infinite being.
2) God is an infinite being.
3) Therefore, there cannot be more than one God.
4) Therefore; Father, Son and Spirit aren’t three gods.
Regarding the attributes of grace, mercy, jealousy, etc; I don’t believe they are eternal attributes. I believe they are contingent attributes. Love, of course, is eternal because God IS Love. Love is a summation of the law, which is a reflection of God’s perfect character, which is eternal.
“1) God isn’t composed of parts.
2) The Father, Son and Spirit are God.
3) Therefore, the Father, Son and Spirit aren’t parts of God.”
/////////
the three aren’t really three? the father is not part of the son, he is the son?
the three are not parts of god, then the father cannot know there is a son because then he would know that he is a separate being from the son.
Hi mr kebab. Yes, the three are three that are also one in divine simplicity. Likewise, God’s attributes are many, but also one in divine simplicity. The logic holds up and Dale’s challenge has been answered. It is perfectly logical for three eternal, divine persons to be the same God.
“Likewise, God’s attributes are many, but also one in divine simplicity. ”
are gods attributes persons ? do gods attributes exist on their own like the persons of the trinity ? is omniscience 1 and 3 at the same time?
“Yes, the three are three ”
the three are three and not each other.
“that are also one in divine simplicity. ”
but they are still three and not each other.
” It is perfectly logical for three eternal, divine persons to be the same God.”
the three are not the same persons. the three fully know they are distinct from each other and share the same powers.
is “god” here “same powers” ?
Andrew;
One other thing. You said he wasn’t a creation. I would say you are wrong. Col. 1.15 says “He is the Firstborn prototokos of all creation. pases ktiseos That is a partitive genitive. He is Firstborn ‘of ‘ all creation. Also see Proverbs 8.22-31; Rev 3.14; Jo.1.1-3; Heb 1.2-3.
If you would say that prototokos means unique one then of course I would not deny that that could be true. But then of course all firstborn would be unique.
We could also delve into John where he is called the “monogenes theos” only begotton god. Of course God the Father is never referred to in these terms, Firstborn, only begotten, ‘begining of the creation by God. arke tes ktiseos tou theou.
“If God is Father, Son and Spirit, and all are eternal deity, then none is a ‘part’ of God, but is ‘all’ of God.”
so then all of god begets all of god and all of god does not beget all of god?
all of god sends all of god and all of god does not send all of god?
all of god loves all of god and all of god is not three separate parts loving each other?
No, the Father begets the Son and the Father sends the Son. The Father loves the Son who loves the Spirit, etc. None of this is relevant to the my response to the “identity problem”.
“No, the Father begets the Son and the Father sends the Son. The Father loves the Son who loves the Spirit, etc”
not ALL god is sending ALL god? how much god is sending and how much god is being sent?
Hi Andrew, It seems to me that you are talking (writing) in circles, or obfuscating (presumably not on purpose). You make statements about God as a “He” like, “Since the eternal God is not composed of parts (simple), nothing in His Being…”, “…and what He is not, three different gods”.
Who, may I ask, is this “He”? He cannot be the Father, the Son, or the Spirit. So, who is He? Can you point to any passage in the Bible where this He God is mentioned, yet is neither the Father, the Son, nor the Spirit?
It seems to me that this “He” that you are calling “God” is actually your list of non-contingent attributes, or eternal attributes. Aren’t you conflating a list into a “Who”?
Hi Kevin. You are ignoring the argument. Forget about the semantics. I have definitively answered Dale’s “identity problem” with a sound argument. The identity issue has been refuted.
Sorry Andrew, You are just declaring something to be so that just ain’t so, and just waiving a “semantics” flag is showing that you can’t resolve the problem. Either your God is a list, or your God is a He. God is not a semantic. The God of the Bible is a He. Have a good day.
Andrew;
I strongly disagree with you. 1 Corinthians 8 contrast dia (through whom all things are) agency and ek (out of whom all things are) source.
I think Greek Grammarians Dana and Mantey also disagree with you under the heading “Passive with Intermediate agency.” Actually they cite John 1.3
Also the “all things” would of course exclude the Father in connection with all things that were through Jesus.
We should be careful in creating absoluteness in the term “all things”. See 1 Corinthians 15.27 ‘All things’ were subjected it is evident God was the exception.
Hi Dokimazo. I’m not familiar with those particular greek grammarians, but it sounds like commentary, not grammar. It is certainly a fact of greek grammar for the genitive to denote active agency with the preposition dia. This is opposed to, say, the accusative case which would be passive.
Look at 1 Peter 5:12. Same preposition, same genitive case. 1 Peter was not written “on account” of Sylvanus (passive/accusative), it was written by his active agency (genitive). IOW, Sylvanus was a co-creator of that epistle. In comparison, like Peter is the source and Sylvanus was the agent in the creation of 1 Peter by dictation, the Father is the source with the Son the agent in the creation of all things. The Son was there, and precedes all creation. Therefore, He is uncreated. It’s a biblical fact.
Regarding your “all things” comment, the passage you cited has a qualification in the text, but 1 Cor 8:6 does not.
Grace and peace
Andrew;
“A Manual Grammar of The Greek New Testament” Dana And Mantey page 162 under heading, “The Passive With Intermediate Agent.”
I agree with your 1 Peter quote but disagree that Jesus had no beginning. See scriptures posted prior. What is odd is that you can see agency and that the Father is the source, yet still want to allude to a consubstantial unity of three. I guess we’re back where we started. The Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 persons making up one God. Where that concept is found in Scripture is hard to really surmise.
I guess to me in the Scripture you cited (1 Pater) there was a source and there was agency. They were two separate beings. So the source and the agent are two different minds. Actually see Hebrews 1.3 quoted earlier where Jesus is the exact representative of his very being, and then goes vs 9 to say he has a God who anointed him. Also John eludes to a representative of God, Jesus, saying, “Also I have not come of my own initiative, but he that sent me is real…. What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. …….I know him because I am a representative from him and that One sent me forth. John 7.16,28,29
Two minds numerically different beings, different persons. Different wills.
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your ideas but cannot make them sync.
Dokimazo
Hi Kevin
In regards to this
>The answer is a creator/creature distinction. There are fundamental differences between the Creator and the creature that must be acknowledged and taken into account before pinning the Triune Deity to a philosophical concept like absolute and relative identity.
what do you think of Philo’s discussion of God’s word?
>And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a preeminent gift, to stand on the confines of both [the created and uncreated], and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, “And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You;” neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties: a hostage to the Creator, as a pledge and security that the whole race would never fly off and revolt entirely, choosing disorder rather than order; and to the creature, to lead it to entertain a confident hope that the merciful God would not overlook his own work. For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace. (Who is the heir of divine things? XLII)
Philo, and presumably John, are comfortable with an intermediary (the word) between Creator and the creation.
Hi Alex, My really short answer would simply be that I don’t care at all what Philo says. He was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher from Egypt who was not a Christian, but a pagan. Nevertheless, since Christians have been taught, through Philo’s writings, to read the Bible Hellenistically, I will give a little longer answer.
Notice that Philo is using Greek philosophy, something we are prohibited to do by Col. 2:8. Philo is postulating that there is an intermediary being between Plato’s unmoved mover, called God, or Father, and this intermediary is doing the actual creating. It is a conclusion driven by Plato’s philosophy of the immutability of God.
Philo is ignoring the reality of the Hebrew language of the Old Testament.
I see the Word in John 1 (which Philo never read, as he was dead when John was written) as the word of the Father. Being “with” God is a Hebrew way of saying things. Wisdom and strength are also “with” God (Job 12:12,13,16), and wisdom even speaks (Lk. 11:49). Does this make strength, or wisdom another God-person, or another intermediary? No. It is how things are said in Hebrew but sound strange when crossed over into another language and can lead to misunderstandings and bad theology. God’s word is also a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, etc. God’s word became flesh in Jesus, the light of the world. Rev. 19:13 says, “and his name is called the word of God.” Jesus functions as God’s word in flesh for us, as he is the one “mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5)
So, is the “word” an intermediary between the Creator God and creation? Well, if you are making the word “word” into a literal person, no. But God spoke His word and things were created, so in that sense His word is an intermediary, as shown in Psalm 33: 6 “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.”
Which of these is the correct interpretation of john 1 10 ?
A. https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/john-110-11-insights-and-commentary
B.https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/john-1-10
Comments are closed.