{"id":3747,"date":"2012-04-23T08:19:45","date_gmt":"2012-04-23T12:19:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=3747"},"modified":"2015-02-26T15:17:24","modified_gmt":"2015-02-26T20:17:24","slug":"defining-the-concept-of-a-trinitarian","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/defining-the-concept-of-a-trinitarian\/","title":{"rendered":"Defining the concept of a trinitarian"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"I woke up this morning, and realized that there is a problem with how I\u2019ve been defining the concept of a unitarian.\u00a0 In this post, I will attempt a definition of the concept of a trinitarian<\/strong>, after reviewing what is required of a good definition. Next time<\/a>, I’ll try to define the concept of a unitarian.<\/p>\n

According to the textbook <\/a>I have used for years in my critical thinking class, a good definition should<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Include the genus and a differentia.<\/li>\n
  2. Not be too broad or too narrow.<\/li>\n
  3. State the essential attributes of the concept\u2019s referents.<\/li>\n
  4. Not be circular.<\/li>\n
  5. Not use negative terms unnecessarily.<\/li>\n
  6. Not use vague, obscure, or metaphorical language. (p. 44)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    What is a trinitarian?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Definition 1: someone who believes in a triune god.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    This fails criteria 2 and 6.<\/p>\n

    2 \u2013 The definition is too broad, that is, it lets things into the category which do not belong there. One might be a Hindu who believes in many gods, and one of these many gods is a triune god.\u00a0 But this person would not be a trinitarian.<\/p>\n

    6 \u2013 The definition is obscure because of the term \u201ctriune\u201d \u2013 which would seem to mean just, somehow or other triple<\/em> or threefold.<\/p>\n

    In addressing 2, we should ask have to tighten up the definition.\u00a0 It is not a trinitarian by definition a Christian?\u00a0 I think not.\u00a0 There have been scholars, admittedly, cranks, who have argued that ancient Jews including the authors of the Jewish Bible, were trinitarians.\u00a0 This thesis, while patently false, is not false by definition<\/em>.\u00a0 So no, that is not the right way to define our term.<\/p>\n

    Yet we still need a definition which will exclude the sort of Hindu mentioned above.\u00a0 I suggest that a Trinitarian is supposed to be by definition monotheistic. \u00a0Let us also specify the way in which the god is supposed to be triple or triune.<\/p>\n

    Definition 2: someone who believes that the one God in some sense consists of three \u201cpersons.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n

    The term \u201cpersons\u201d has quotes around it to signify that this God in some sense contains three items called \u201cpersons.\u201d Whether or not they are literally persons (i.e. selves) is left as an open question.\u00a0 The definition must be vague in this way to encompass all the sorts of trinitarians out there.<\/p>\n

    But I think something has still been left out \u2013 the definition is still too broad<\/strong>.\u00a0 Suppose that this one God was originally just the Father, and then sometime later, he created the Son and Spirit \u201cwithin himself,\u201d so that he now consisted of three persons.\u00a0 Definition 2 would allow someone believing this to be a trinitarian.\u00a0 But that is not correct.\u00a0 This person does not believe that the three \u201cpersons\u201d are \u201contologically equal\u201d \u2013 since the first is the creator of the second and the third.<\/p>\n

    As with \u201cperson\u201d there is some vagueness in the term \u201contologically equal\u201d \u2013 and yet, I think this is correct \u2013 this is the idea actual trinitarians have in mind.<\/p>\n

    But the definition is still too broad<\/strong>.\u00a0 Suppose a person thought that the one god consisted of Elvis, Bill Clinton, and Weird Al.\u00a0 \"\"This person would not be a trinitarian, but they would satisfy the above definition.\u00a0 So too would a Hindu monotheist who thought that the one God consisted of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.\u00a0 But this is not correct; trinitarianism has to do with the being or beings called by the names \u201cFather,\u201d \u201cSon,\u201d and \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d in the Christian tradition.\u00a0 So let\u2019s try again.<\/p>\n

    Definition 3: someone who believes that the one God in some sense consists of three ontologically equal \u201cpersons,\u201d namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    This definition is almost<\/em> there.\u00a0 But consider the kind of theory explored by Harriet Baber in our recent series here at trinities.\u00a0 This was a type of serial modalism in which the one God has temporal parts, in sequence, Father (creation till Jesus), Son (Jesus\u2019 earthly life), and Spirit (post-ascension). \u00a0These three would be ontologically equal, each being a temporal part of or stage of God.\u00a0 But trinitarianism is supposed to be by definition incompatible with any sort of serial modalism.\u00a0 So we must insert the word \u201ceternally.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Definition 4: someone who believes that the one God in some sense eternally consists of three ontologically equal \u201cpersons,\u201d namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    This definition seems correct to me.<\/strong>\u00a0 I don\u2019t see how it violates any of the six criteria for defining a concept.\u00a0 What do you think?<\/p>\n

    Interestingly, I did not have to use any creedal language.\u00a0 This was by design.\u00a0 Some trinitarians happily embrace the term homoousion<\/em>, but others take the view that such terms are theoretical constructions, and while they may have served well that Christians of the fourth century (or whenever), they may not be suited to our present-day world view.\u00a0 Is this controversial?\u00a0 Yes!\u00a0 But I think those inclined towards the traditional language should nonetheless accept definition 3; they themselves count the people I\u2019m talking about as trinitarians.<\/p>\n

    This is not a stipulative definition<\/strong>, that such as defining the concept of poverty as having a yearly income less than $15,000.\u00a0 Rather, it is an attempt to specify the contours of a concept which is often employed.\u00a0 A trinitarian is by definition supposed to not be any sort of (1) unitarian, (2) \u201cArian,\u201d (3) Jew or Muslim, (4) serial modalist (\u201cSabellian\u201d). I think the above does all this.<\/p>\n

    Finally, note that there is nothing polemical<\/strong> in this definition.\u00a0 It should be accepted by Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, Jews, atheists, \u201cbiblical unitarians,\u201d Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, Greek Orthodox believers \u2013 in short, anyone.\u00a0 It does not stand as a shorthand for an argument; it is a neutral basis for rational discussion.<\/p>\n

    \u00a0Update<\/strong>: I think Definition 4 is still too vague, specifically the term “ontologically equal.” I think the idea is always that they are in some sense equal in their divinity. Now that term “divinity” is plenty vague, but I think it is vague in the right way; various Trinity theories understand it differently. So now I suggest:<\/em><\/p>\n

    Definition 5: someone who believes that the one God in some sense eternally consists of three equally divine \u201cpersons,\u201d namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I woke up this morning, and realized that there is a problem with how I\u2019ve been defining the concept of a unitarian.\u00a0 In this post, I will attempt a definition of the concept of a trinitarian, after reviewing what is required of a good definition. Next time, I’ll try to define the concept of a… Read More »Defining the concept of a trinitarian<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3751,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[4,38,9,3,43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-heresy-orthodoxy","category-monotheism","category-philosophy","category-theories","category-unitarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3747"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3747\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34888,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3747\/revisions\/34888"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3751"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}