“trinitarians,” trinitarians, and me

Faithful listeners to the excellent London Lyceum podcast must be wondering what hit them, when it comes to “the doctrine of the Trinity.” First, theologian Dr. Glenn Butner espousing what I would say is clearly a one-self interpretation of the standard language. Then, me – former evangelical trinitarian, now a unitarian Christian. (By the way, I think this is one of the best interviews I’ve done as far as introducing this difficult set of topics.) My view in one sentence: Trinity theories contradict the Bible, because there the one God isn’t the Trinity, but rather the Father alone, so let us further reform.

Now, our friends Dr. Beau Branson and Skyler McManus, both adult converts to Orthodoxy (or maybe Skyler is just heading in that direction?) espousing a very different take from the first two! At this point they’ve sort of adopted me as their nemesis. Listening to the interview, I noticed a lot of contentious statements and seeming misunderstandings. So I’m taking the unusual step of commenting on that episode. Listen to it while looking at this blog post, and you’ll get a fifth voice (mine) in the conversation.

1:40 – First, it’s notable that the hosts seem to assume going in that because the guests accept the label “trinitarian,” they are theologically on their side. That label is then functioning like shibboleth; say it, and you’re “in.” But from where I sit, I see gigantic differences within that big tent. A major point of my professional work is this: let us sort theories by their contents and label them with terms that naturally describe those, not by unilluminating party-labels. Anyway, since these two are “trinitarians” and are familiar with his work, perhaps they can help the audience to deal with that dastardly heretic Tuggy. A reasonable hope, at first glance.

5:40 – Beau’s summary of what I call “the catholic narrative” about the Trinity is not very accurate. It doesn’t entail “no development at all” or that later trinitarians are just like earlier ones. No, the common narrative is that in some sense Christians have always been trinitarian, but as time went on they came to enjoy hard-won new concepts and terms which helped them to express and understand this commitment more clearly.

6:24 – My Nicene development narrative – Beau plays up one aspect of this, which they then discuss with the hosts – that there were no trinitarians (believers in a tripersonal God) until the latter half of the 300s. But that’s only a strand of the narrative, which is a story about a lot of christological development, then pneumatological and theological changes. For the actual narrative, check out this interview and this one.

6:29 – What I call Beau’s “Western misunderstanding narrative.” I see him as backpedaling a bit here; I remember in his earlier presentations that the idea of tripersonal god is a misunderstanding of the tradition that traces to “Latins” including Augustine.

7:04 – podcast 189 (now this book chapter) – I assume it’s been a while since Dr. Branson read it, so I chalk up to faulty memory that he gives a very mistaken impression of what it’s all about. It’s point is NOT that “God’ in the NT nearly always refers to the Father. That is one of over a dozen scriptural data that are the starting points for the argument, but it is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the NT authors thought that the Father and the one true God were numerically one and the same, that is to say identical. I have noticed that Dr. Branson sometimes slides back and forth between two interpretations of the logical sentence g=f (God just is the Father): one is the linguistic point that the terms “God” and “Father” are in many contexts co-referring. But the other is the metaphysical point that the one God just is the Father and vice-versa, so that counting two things there would be an over-count. But it is the last which I usually have in mind, in my own writing. Incidentally, Beau and I agree on both claims – the linguistic one (as concerns the NT) and the metaphysical one! (Of course, “God” in the Bible sometimes is used of others than God.)

7:30 – the rascally Tuggy’s definition of a trinitarian theology – one on which t=g (the Trinity just is the one God, and vice-versa). Wait… that’s not rascally, or even controversial! But, our two guests deny it. I would ask: how about the hosts? Do they agree with me, or with them? Can one be a “trinitarian” and deny that there is a tripersonal God, that God exists in three Persons?

8:03 – “there are perfectly orthodox formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity that would identify God with the Father.” A very contentious claim that the listener may not realize is so; by “identify” here he doesn’t mean “associate with” but rather the claim that those are really numerically one, and so can’t differ in any way. Aside from this hopeless sort of view, which can (alas) be found in the wild, there would not be clear, uncontroversial examples, unless we include relative identity theories. But Dr. Branson disagrees, because in his view the right understanding of “the Trinity” includes the claim that g=f – a claim to which all the unitarian Christians say “Amen.”

8:20 – Dr. Branson seems to imply that Augustine’s big innovation was using “God” to refer to the whole Trinity. He did do that (and not only him), but it’s a symptom of thinking that the one just is the other, as I explain in this recent paper. The two guests then later (12:10), seemingly on the assumption that on my views a unitarian is anyone who mostly reserves the word “God” for the Father, infer that for me, lots and lots of later trinitarians are really (because of that word usage) unitarians. But that is not my view, so my views have no such consequence. Any trinitarian who tends to stick with the earlier biblical usage of theos (i.e. almost always for the Father) is going to sometimes sound like a unitarian, but may still consistently with that usage think that g=t. No, Dr. Branson, my views do not entail that the Pope and Martin Luther and really unitarians. Again, what that requires is thinking that the Father, and he only, is identical to the one God, as Dr. Branson correctly says at 13:40. This should not be confused with the point that “God” normally refers to the Father.

9:20 – The rascally Tuggy admits that Basil and Athanasius think the one God is the Father, not the Trinity. Yes about Basil, but I must offer a correction about Athanasius: in his earlier works Athanasius, as best I can tell, never mentions or assumes a tripersonal God, but he seems to do exactly that in his late (359-61) work Letters to Serapion, 1.17.1. It seems that Nicene thinking was sort of trending in that direction, though Basil never got the memo. Branson finds it odd to count such as “unitarian” because for him these Orthodox saints are practically exemplars of “trinitarian” thinking. Others will find it odd because of the pro-Nicene narrative that one still learns in seminary education – those are the good guys, right? So they must be “trinitarian.” But I’m just describing them by the contents of their views, unitarian (early Athanasius and all of Basil) and trinitarian (late Athanasius, and the Gregories). BTW, calling ancient subordinationists “unitarian” is not at all new with me; it’s part of the now deliberately forgotten history of early modern unitarianism; I can show you guys in 1702, 1785, 1819, or 1835 etc. that (quite properly) use the term so as to include, e.g. Origen, Tertullian, and Justin.

11:01 – How can Tuggy think that “everyone” has misunderstood such guys up till now? Well, many have not – including some of the early modern scholars just alluded to! But the reason is just that catholic traditions strongly want to see them as marching inevitably towards the glorious trinitarian achievement in 381, so they get sort of grandfathered in as “trinitarians,” though they all hold what would later count as heretical views – basically, that the Logos and Spirit are not as divine as is God (aka the Father). It’s party sympathy, really. They were up to the catholic standards of their day, so we overlook that their views violate later catholic standards – as if those have been unchanging.

11:15 “Tertullian the Unitarian” – Yes, I completely stand by the argument. And any passage which a reader might think sounds trinitarian is fully explained in various parts of this recent book I co-authored. Date unsuccessfully pulls out all the stops to try to show that Tertullian believed in a tripersonal God, and is shot down by the texts every single time.

12:30 – Beau concludes, and our hosts agree, that Tuggy’s whole problem is just his weird definitions. A tempting explanation, to be sure. There an old trope going back to Athanasius that non-Nicenes are tricky, lying weasels, who hide their views even as they crap all over God and Jesus. But I think that all trinitarians should simply agree with my definitions! They just take common usages and make them a bit more precise, so as to be serviceable for classifying rival theological views. There’s nothing tricky, or even unusual about my definitions. Most trinitarians and most unitarians just shrug and say, “Yeah, that sounds about right.” That’s pretty much what happened on the occasions of podcasts 11 and 189, when I was presenting in front of majority-Catholic audiences, with Protestant theologians and philosophers also there. No one stood up and objected that my defititions of “trinitarian” and “unitarian” were goofy, poorly motivated, or obviously wrong. But our guests here are, paradoxically, pushing a very revisionary take on “the Trinity” even while being members of arguably the most conservative, tradition-bound branch of Christianity. They’re would-be reformers in a tradition which has absolutely no place for reform.

14:15 – Exercise for the listener: see if you can find obvious counterexamples to Dr. Branson’s definitions of “trinitarian” and “unitarian.” (Some guidelines here.) I think both are obvious non-starters, but I’ll leave that to a future paper which I may write on the topic, where I’ll also discuss some interesting and clever challenges Dr. Branson throws at my definitions.

16:15 – Why Branson’s view is not, he thinks, tritheistic. It posits three beings, each of which has all it takes to be a god (the divine essence), but “God” does not mean “a being with the divine nature.” That is his essentially linguistic reply to the charge of tritheism, which so bedeviled Basil. Suppose I had three wives. Could I escape the charge of trigamy by arguing that “my wife” does not mean “woman two whom I’m married”? You’d rightly ask me what “my wife” does mean! And so one should ask Branson what “God” means; buckle up when he explains the bizarre view of Gregory of Nyssa on that! (See his dissertation for this.) His analogy to the term “king” doesn’t seem to be the point. David and Solomon are each king, but not at the same time! Nor has anyone ever thought that “king” refers to a defining kind-essence, like “humanity” or “divinity.” He suggests that maybe “God” means the ultimate origin of all else, in which case only the Father will be “God.” Yes! But the hosts seem not to notice that the Son and Spirit have been demoted to being less than fully divine – unless we stipulate, as Branson does, following the ancient Gregories, that divinity does not imply aseity or ultimacy.

17:45 – Host asks Branson if the divine nature is trinitarian – I think he means, does it imply tripersonality. Interesting question; trinitarians are split on this. Branson answers that there are three which have that nature. In other words, no. None of those is tripersonal. Branson adds, correctly, that some trinitarians think the divine nature is a universal, other think it is an individual property (trope), and doesn’t seem to commit either way.

20:15 – Host: Don’t most Christians think that “God” refers to the divine nature, not to the Father? Me: if they’re trinitarians and think that the one God and “the divine nature” and the Trinity are all one and the same, yes. Branson: well, most think of the Father as the Source [of the others]. This is really a semantic issue, a change in how “God” is used. NT and other early sources: “God” is usually the Father. In late 4th c. this shifts, so that it now refers to the nature. Me: Yes, because people now thought that the one God just is that tripersonal nature/being.

22:00 Host – an early modern Reformed creed describes God as three “subsistances” in one divine “being,” and each has the whole divine essence undivided. Does Branson agree? Answer, “God” can be used to refer to a Person (i.e. the Father), or to the divine nature. As time goes on, this second usage gains popularity. And as Photius says, it is polytheism if you posit two or more ultimate sources. Me: Ok then, then as you deny polytheism, you must deny godhood/deity in this sense to the Son and Spirit, which is why Dr. Branson’s theology is, in my view, subordinationist.

25:45 – Back to Tuggy’s Nicene development narrative. How can he say that the 325 Creed is unitarian? Me: because they clearly assume that the one God just is the Father. The issue there was purely about the level of divinity of the Logos – an issue which unitarians then and now disagree about. For more on what they meant saying that God and the Logos were “same essence,” see a chapter in this book.

Skylar (27:00): Tuggy thinks that Basil’s neo-Nicene theology is tritheistic. (Yes – Tuggy and a host of non-Nicene contemporaries of his, judging from Basil’s several defensive writings.) Skylar: but Tuggy doesn’t realize that on his definition of “God” in this paper of his causes problem, because if that is what “God” means, then Basil will be committed to only one “God.” Me: Beau and Skylar have misunderstood the point of that paper. I am there analyzing the concepts god and deity, not telling theologians how they must use the word “God.” Basil’s problems result from his commitment to three beings each of whom in his view has all it takes to be a god (the divine essence). In his view, divinity doesn’t imply aseity, which is why he thinks that the Father can eternally give full divinity to the other two. This is why he’s not a subordinationist like Origen, but rather an unwitting, Nicene tritheist. At this point being a Nicene didn’t clearly include the idea that nature-sharing makes the Three into the same god, or makes them “Persons” (somehow) within the one god. But that was definitively changed in 381.

30:35 – Host: isn’t aseity entailed by divinity? That’s what Calvin thinks. Branson: Calvin is the first person to say that the Son is autotheos. But maybe he just meant that his person isn’t a se, but his nature is. Me: a head-scratching claim, since a nature is one’s essential qualities – if your nature includes aseity, then you, the possessor of it, must be thereby be a se. Branson: But this was a common distinction in the middle ages – personally caused, but essentially or by nature a se. Me: yeah, the middle ages had a lot of problems! Arguably, absolute perfection and so full deity imply aseity. This view is now widely, and I think rightly held by analytic theologians. Branson here suggests that Father and Son share a single trope of divinity. I think this is problematic, since a trope is an individual instance of a property, not a universal, and would seem to be the sort of thing which is in principle unshareable. If you know about some man A and some man B, and find out that they have but one trope of humanity (or any property) between them, it seems to follow that A=B – that we’re really talking about just one man here. Why wouldn’t the same be true for a trope of deity/divinity?

33:30 Host correctly observes that according to Branson, the divine nature doesn’t imply tripersonality. Branson fends this off by suggesting that his theology sounds “trinitarian.” Host sticks by his guns, then brings up Edwards’s quasi-Augustinian mental spin on “the Trinity.”

36:05 Host opines that Tuggy thinks that “if you can’t understand it, there’s a problem.” My reply: depends what you mean! If a claim is unintelligible (can’t understand the meaning of it) then it will be no theological use. But if we have reason to think P is true but we can’t explain why P is true – no, I don’t see a general problem there. Often we know that something is true while we can’t explain why. Apparent contradictions – yes, I think these are a formidable problem when it comes to Trinity theories. Let me be clear: at no point have I ever assumed that we should be able to fully understand or fully explain God. This has never played any role in my thinking. It’s just part of theism that there will be countless truths about God that we don’t know, e.g. the contents of most of his omniscience. We should expect difficulties in theology – but this doesn’t transform real difficulties into non-difficulties. I think this is just an unhelpful replay of the old “unitarians are just rationalists who refuse to believe what they can’t fully understand or explain” meme, which was popularized by Cardinal Newman. But it’s just not true. We hold the views we do not because we’re allergic to mysteries, but because we think biblical theological and christological claims are true! Any “mysteries” (strange or unexplained things) actually found in the texts we accept.

37:30 Branson raises canon problems; a difficult issue, we agree. Branson argues that “the doctrine of the Trinity” is more widely held by Christians than any one canon collection is. Me: that just ignores the deep differences in views between trinitarians. It’s like saying that all Christians agree on “Providence” – true (just the general idea that God is in charge), but not a very informative claim, since Christians have in our ranks Molinists, open theists, Calvinists, Thomists, etc. The wide agreement about “the Trinity” is largely, though not totally, verbal. And it includes the idea that God is tripersonal or triune, contrary to Branson’s revisionary story. Experience shows that thinking Christians are really on their own when it comes to interpreting the mandatory language. And no, these are not mere differences of emphasis or “starting points,” contrary to a lot of recent theology. If some of these theories are true, then others are false, both with “Providence” and with “the Trinty.”

39:30 What say you to Richard Muller, chief trinitarian for current Reformed theologians? Skylar: he sez each of the Three is essentially a se. But as to their personhood, Son and Spirit are not a se, but rather, they exist because of the Father. We (McManus and Branson) are just saying that the Father is personally a se, while the other two are not. Branson: Tuggy is wrong about Basil; his reply is effective, that there’s only one god because there is only one Father. Me: Yes, he does give that traditional answer, but it is point-missing in light of the new Nicene claims that Son and Spirit each also fully have the divine essence, which is by definition (on any general theory of essences or natures) sufficient for being a god. Also, Branson here chooses to ignore Basil’s other flailing answers; Basil could sense that this one was not enough. He ends by wondering who could possibly say that St. Basil’s views are not orthodox? They’re his after all! Me: To the contrary, the official catholic standards are the creeds. It’s just party loyalty to refuse a label to a guy because of his stature, despite the contents of his views. We need to go by the actual views, and push aside propagandistic classifications.

43:20 Back to essential vs. personal aseity. Host: Nathan Jacobs sez Easter Fathers don’t believe in essential aseity, but only in personal aseity. Branson: I’m not sure they even make that distinction.

45:30 Host: a lot of “hierarchy” in this here “monarchical trinitarianism.” Doesn’t that make Son and Spirit ontologically subordinate to the Father. Me: yes. Branson: hierarchy of some sort, yes – a causal one. About “submission” and “obedience” – I think that clearly the members of the Trinity really share one will. Can two persons with numerically the same faculty of willing – can one “obey” the other? Me: a rather big problem when it comes to NT teaching! Also – one token/individual property shared by different beings – same problem as above.

48:00 – Host: why is this Eastern view not very popular or even well known? Me: because most Orthodox theologians seem to believe in a tripersonal God, and so would reject both Branson’s theology and his narrative. See the quotations from Orthodox quasi-authorities in this paper. Branson: Ask Sam Waldron maybe. And maybe just the West more uses “God” for the divine nature, rather than the Father, and they tend to be nominalistic, so when people see “God” they assume this means a person. E.g. Tuggy just assumes that “God” refers to a person and just doesn’t get that there could be an equivocation here. Me: OT and NT grammar make this abundantly clear – e.g. singular personal pronouns and singular verbs – that is how languages communicate that something is a self/person, in addition to personal proper names, e.g. YHWH. About “God” referring to the divine nature, many trinitarians – the one-self kind – think that this divine nature just is the triune God himself – yes, though having three “Persons” they really do think there is just one self there. So for them “God” refers to both a nature/essence and a person/self.

51:00 – Can Western Trinity theories survive Tuggy’s challenges? Branson: not sure I want to talk about Western vs. Eastern views. (I did say that before, yes.) There is verbal development over time; not sure how substantive the disagreement. Branson: Dale’s critique is: in the NT, the word “God” refers to the Father. Me: nope! Way more substance than that! Again, this podcast and this chapter. For me that usage of “God” is only highly fallible, defeasible evidence that a person thinks that g=f, nothing more. Very many trinitarians habitually revert to this older usage of theos. Branson: if Dale said that any “trinitarian” theology must call the Trinity “God” – then he’d have a point. Me: Nah. In principle, one can think that g=t without using “God” to refer to t; one could just be a believer in a tripersonal God who is very conservative in his use of words. Branson: Tuggy assumes that a “trinitarian” must be what I call “egalitarian.” Me: no, I only assume that catholic orthodoxy demands that each Person be fully divine – a standard view. (I don’t find his neologism “egalitarian” to be helpful.) Branson is right that a majority of trinitarians assume eternal generation and procession – but in my view, he needs to confront the fact that these claims have absolutely no grounds in Scripture, a fact widely acknowledged by Protestant Bible scholars in the last 200 years or so.

55:15 – Branson: maybe Augustine ain’t so different from the Cappadocians. Skylar: We must take “processions” seriously. Me: Indeed – as well as the total lack of biblical basis, and how these claims conflict with the equal greatness and equal divinity of the Persons, something much discussed in recent analytic literature.

Great job with the interview, Brandon and Jordan! I would humbly suggest that you not overlook the very significant biblical problems both for Dr. Branson’s “trinitarian” view and for traditional tripersonal God theories. First, as I mentioned above, many Bible scholars agree that no biblical text says, implies, or assumes anything about eternal generation and procession. The “fathers,” frankly, are terrible in their interpretations of the small handful of traditional proof texts. Second, where does the NT teach that the Son and Spirit are divine in the same way that the Father is divine? Even if a few texts teach that Jesus existed before creation, and that God created through him, how do we get the claims that Jesus has all the essential divine attributes, e.g. eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, perfect goodness (where this entails untemptability)?