In Lewis’ next chapter, entitled, “The Three-Personal God,” he expands on the Christian concept of the Trinity. He begins by pointing out something that most people probably overlook: of all the religions in the world, only Christianity offers any kind of glimpse as to what something “super-personal” looks like. Eastern religions, which are essentially pantheist, say God is ultimately non-personal—that ultimate reality is like the ocean, and that we as individuals are all like water drops. Eventually, we will be absorbed into the sea. Of course, as Lewis points out, “If that is what happens to us, then being absorbed is the same as ceasing to exist.”
By contrast, Lewis points out that only Christianity has “any idea of how human souls can be taken into the life of God and yet remain themselves—in fact, be very much more themselves than they were before.” What exactly does that mean? Lewis provides an analogy that has stuck with me for 30 years. I think it is the best one, if you want to get even a glimpse of what “eternal life” is like. Here’s the analogy:
On a one-dimensional level, you can have a straight line. On a two-dimensional level, those lines can be combined in ways they couldn’t conceive in a one-dimensional world, and they could form a square. Moving on, on a three-dimensional level, those squares can be combined in yet more inconceivable ways for anyone living in a one-or-two-dimensional world, and could form a cube.
In our life in this natural world, we understand that one person is one being. I am me, and you are you. Perhaps we might get a fleeting glimpse of “two becoming one” in a strong, loving marriage—you know, the kind where the man and woman are so united that when one dies after 60 years of marriage, the very next day the other one passes away. Still, for the most part, in this world one person is one being, and we can’t really conceive of it any other way.
Lewis, though, suggests that the doctrine of the Trinity describes a “higher kind of life,” where you can have “a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube.” Let’s face it, if you were a square, and someone tried to tell you about the reality of a cube, that person might be able to draw something like this, 
but what you’re looking at isn’t really a cube: it’s a two-dimensional illustrate of what a cube would look like. We get a general idea, but unless you step into a three-dimensional world, that drawing will still be beyond our understanding.
This leads Lewis to his next point, even though the Trinity is something that is ultimately beyond our intellectual understanding, that “Trinity-life” is there for us to experience: God (the Father) is the one we pray to, God (the Holy Spirit) is also the thing inside us urging us to pray, and God (the Son) is bridge or road along which we are pushed to that goal. It is, quite simply, experiential. The early Christians, after the resurrection of Christ and the experience of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, found themselves “caught up” in this new phenomenon—and it took time for them to articulate in theological terms just what they were experiencing.
You see Trinitarian language all over the New Testament, but it wasn’t articulated in some kind of “doctrine” yet. That was the job for later theologians to hammer out. Still, it is only a doctrine. I’m sure that the reality of God is much deeper and complex than even our doctrine of the Trinity can express. And even though our intellect, reason, and language can never fully grasp it, the fact is we can, and in fact do, experience God in this very way—it is on a personal level, and not merely analytical level. And that is why the best way to know God better is through relationships with other people. Remember, Paul himself likens the Church to organs in one body—it takes people who are “united together in a body, loving one another, helping one another, showing Him to one another.” Therefore, as Lewis says, the best “instrument” for learning about God is, in fact, the whole Christian community, working together, serving each other, and loving one another.
It is ultimately in the context of loving relationships that we not simply know God, but we experience Him. That is why, as Lewis says, “horrible nations have horrible religions: they have been looking at God through a dirty lens”—and the result is often inhumane treatment of the most vulnerable in society.
Trying to get your head around Trinitarian life is going to be a futile endeavor: you never will, fully. But you can “know” it on a relational level, through others who are trying to do the same. Is it a difficult concept? Of course. But Christian doctrine isn’t going to be easy. As Lewis states, “We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has not facts to bother about.”
For me, that’s one of the most intriguing things about Christianity: it’s quirky, and it’s hard to really grasp with my intellect alone. But what is points to can be seen in a thousand different ways in real life.
Want to better understand the Trinity? Sure, study some theology, but also look at a loving family and the inter-relationships within it, look at a vibrant church that is diverse yet unified. You get a better grasp of it when you are taken up into the Trinitarian life as is works out in everyday life.
The concept of a Trinity is hardly unique, and certainly not original to Christianity. It’s fully expressed in Zoroastrian:
Ahura Mazda (the Father), Spenta Mainyu or Vohu Mana (the Holy Spirit), and Asha Vahista (the Logos, or Son):
In the Egyptian ” Hymn to Amun” it’s written:
In Buddhism the Trikāya doctrine says that Buddha has three kāyas or bodies (from wiki):
1. The Dharmakāya or Truth body which embodies the very principle of enlightenment and knows no limits or boundaries;
2. The Sambhogakāya or body of mutual enjoyment which is a body of bliss or clear light manifestation;
3. The Nirmāṇakāya or created body which manifests in time and space.
Toaists treach of The Three Pure Ones who are regarded as the pure and singular manifestation of the Tao and the origin of all sentient beings. They are also called the Three Pure Pellucid Ones, the Three Pristine Ones, the Three Divine Teachers, the Three Clarities, or the Three Purities.
In Hinduism, the trinity (Trimūrti, or The Three Forms) is of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. These three-in-one are called “the Hindu triad” or the “Great Trinity”
In the Hindu Puranas there is this passage:
In response, the three-gods-in-one (Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva]), replied,
And the concept is found with the Greeks. Aristotle wrote:
‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'”.
Thomas Dennis Rock wrote in his book, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867 (Pg. 22-23)
So, as you can see, the Trinity is not new, or original.
Hi, John. You quote Aristotle, but you don’t provide a reference. Where did Aristotle write that?
It’s noted in Arthur Weigall’s Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-198
Ok, so your source is third party. Does your source cite what work of Aristotle’s that quote is found? I’m asking because I’m unable to find it in any of his works.
Me neither. I see many people citing that book, but no other reference.
Weigall is quoting from Aristotle’s On the Heavens, Book 1, chapter 1. You can get a free pdf here: https://www.globalgreyebooks.com/on-the-heavens-ebook.html
Only Aristotle doesn’t say it like he’s quoted above, and he certainly doesn’t mention a Trinity.
“Trying to get your head around Trinitarian life is going to be a futile endeavor: you never will, fully. But you can “know” it on a relational level, through others who are trying to do the same. Is it a difficult concept? Of course. But Christian doctrine isn’t going to be easy. As Lewis states, “We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has not facts to bother about.”
We are dealing in “Fact”???
Wow. How can someone prove as fact that one invisible being is at the same time three individual persons? I suggest this concept came about when Gentile Christians started claiming, possibly in the late first century, that Jesus was Yahweh the Creator, a claim not seen in the epistles of Paul or in the Gospels! How could Jesus be Yahweh if he is quoted in the Gospels as praying to “the Father”??? Was he praying to himself???So they came up with a complicated concept that even Jewish and Muslim scholars say is nonsensical.
Note John 10:30 where Yeshua said, “I and the Father are one”.
I don’t think the cube works as a good analogy. The squares are but parts of the cube and not the whole cube. The doctrine of the Trinity states that each person is fully God. Fractional identity doesn’t work.
Well, I dont think Lewis is so much trying to explain the Trinity itself, as he is trying to illustrate how hard it is for human beings to grasp it. Understanding the Trinity is like a two-dimensional being trying to fully grasp what a 3-dimensional being is like.
So long as it is understood that appeals to another dimensional level apply to all isms. In other words, it is no defense against the charge of contradiction to argue that contradictions are resolved by an upper-level dimension. That enables every assertion, regardless its intelligibility, to appeal to it as well. It’s a de facto out for every logical inversion.
Every explanation of the Trinity that I’ve read runs afoul of the law of non-contradiction. If it cannot avoid contradiction, then appeals to another dimensional level won’t save it.
Think of an apple pie cut into three slices; each slice is equally the same apple pie (the same *homoousios* or substance), but exists as three individual slices.
Pax.
Lee.
But each slice is a fraction of the pie, so that doesn’t work. If you equate the word pie with God for purposes of analogy, the you contradict the trinitarian assertion that each person is fully God. Using a composite substance as an analogy is self-defeating.
Moreover, the pie illustration implies that the divine substance can be divided. That of course means that since each person is unique within the divine substance, a portion thereof is the Father, another portion is the Son, and another portion is the Holy Spirit. That makes the word “God” an abstract term akin to a club or a corporation. If God is a composite of three parts, then “God” is logically posterior to its components and is not therefore the first order of being (for God would not be God without the assemblage of three parts). And if the parts are the first order of being, that contradicts the assertion that God is the ultimate. And if the ultimate is the part(s), then that ultimate is God.
As stated, every composite is dependent on its parts or some other actualizing principle for its existence. If it were not for the “parts,” God would not exist, and if it were not for the assembly, the parts would not be God. We thus see a logical dependence for both the components and the whole. And whatever is dependent cannot be God by definition. That is why most trinitarians reject the notion that God can be composite. A composite being is a dependent being, so God must be simple–an absolute unity with no composition of parts and no passive potency. Thus, your pie illustration doesn’t work.
The idea of the *Word* or *logos,* John in his gospel borrowed from Stoic philosophy. The *logos* was the logical, rational principle behind the universe.
As for the idea that the early Christians, who were all Jews, made up their religion borrowing pagan concepts has been shown to be a very big stretch at best. Ronald Nash’s book *The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?* is really good. Nash demonstrates fairly conclusively that the NT did not co-opt theology from Greco-Roman paganism even though it occasionally borrowed terminology. Pagan ideas thus did not influence the early church, all of which was Jewish originally.
John borrowed the Stoic term *logos* because it best described what he was trying to say about Christ’s preexistence, not because he was inventing a figure based on Greco-Roman or Asian paganism.
The idea of the Trinity itself, while not explicitly stated as in the Nicene Creed, nevertheless exists in the NT, which owes it underlying theology to Judaism, not paganism.
After reviewing all of the evidence, NT Wright concludes that: “Within the most fiercely monotheistic of [ancient] Jewish circles . . . there is no suggestion that ‘monotheism’ or praying the Shema, had anything to do with the numerical analysis of the inner being of Israel’s God Himself.The oneness of Israel’s God, the creator, was never an analysis of God’s inner existence, but always a polemical doctrine over against paganism and dualism. It was only with the rise of Christianity . . . that Jews in the second and subsequent centuries interpreted ‘monotheism’ as the numerical oneness of the divine being.”
Pax.
Lee.
The idea of the Trinity cannot exist in the New Testament because the concept, in all its forms, asserts logical contradictions and cannot thus be true on its own terms. From composite unity arguments to essence-threeness arguments, a trinitarian is forced to either “unGod” the persons (making them fractionally God) or assert three Gods.
I don’t see it Scalia.
I’m certainly no logician but it seems to me that the Trinity exists outside the space-time continuum, where the normal rules of logic don’t apply. I mean, we’re talking about the mind behind the creation of the space-time universe. Ultimately it’s a mystery, which with our finite human minds we’ll probably never fully grasp.
Regardless, the basic concept of the Trinity is in fact, in the New Testament. Groups like the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) object to the Trinity on these grounds (the idea is illogical) but in their case 2,000 years of Christian theology is against them. Their attempts to translate away/explain away the Trinity on textual grounds are tortured, to say the least.
Pax.
Lee.
Lee, you write:
First, what don’t you see? You can’t see the logical contradiction? If that’s the case, what part of the argument is tripping you up? The contradictions are all over the place, depending on one’s version of the Trinity (there are multiple versions, you know).
Second, if logical inversions are biblically acceptable, then the statement, “God does not exist,” is equivalent to, “God exists.” The entire message of the Bible is then turned upside-down.
Third, if you can appeal to a zone “where the normal rules of logic don’t apply,” so can everybody else. Every ism now has an “out” for every logical conundrum they face. There is thus no rational basis for determining truth.
Fourth, the Bible says in Romans 1:20–
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
God’s divine nature is “clearly seen” by the things that are made. Since logical contradictions hardly make anything clear, appealing to logical obscurity is no defense.
The Doctrine of the Trinity (DT), as are Arianism and Modalism, is a template for biblical interpretation. Nothing in the Bible contains “pies” or co-equal, co-eternal, one essence three persons terminology. The DT is a conclusion drawn from biblical data around which everything else, including “problem” Scriptures is interpreted. But if the conclusion is unintelligible, and logical contradictions render any proposition unintelligible, then the “conclusion” must be false. The DT stands disqualified as a template for biblical interpretation for no sense can be made of it. I have to understand what I am affirming, and nobody can rationally affirm a contradiction.
By the way, I am neither an Arian nor a Unitarian.
Firstly, Here’s a link to an article, “The Logic of the Trinity,” by Einar Duenger Bohn addressing some of the logical issues you posted above: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11841-011-0265-1
Now. Okay, Scalia, I’m with you part of the way. I agree that reason and logic are one way we make sense of the universe.
However. There are many atheists who would say that the idea of an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated being is illogical or irrational. If God created the cosmos, who created God they ask? When the theist says God is eternal and uncreated they respond that the idea of an uncreated, eternal first-cause is illogical or irrational. And yet if there’s one point on which scripture is clear it’s that God is eternal and uncreated.
My point is that ultimately logic and reason only take us so far. As humans our reason is imperfect, I would even argue fallen due to sin.
Scripture is full of stuff that on the surface sounds irrational or illogical. A bush which burns but is not consumed? A dead man coming to life again three days later then being bodily acsended into heaven? So I’m wary of trying to use human reason alone to prove any of this, because it can’t. And anyone who knows me knows I’m very wary of emotionalism and fuzzy logic.However our finite minds simply cannot grasp everything pertaining to God’s nature. If we could, he wouldn’t be God.
But you say that nature does point to God’s divine nature/characteristics, to which I would also agree. And actually nature contains trinities which point to an ultimate Divine Trinity:
Time, for example. With time the past is not the same as the present, which is not the same as the future. Each is simultaneous (according to some physicists). Yet, they are not three “times” but one. That is, they all share the same nature: time.
Or space. With space, height is distinct from width, which is not the same as depth, which itself is not the same as height. Yet, they are not three “spaces” but one space.That is, they all share the same nature: space.
With matter, solid is not the same as liquid, which is itself not the same as gas, which is not the same as solid. Yet, they are not three “matters” but one. That is, they all share the same nature: matter.
Note that above we have three sets of threes. In other words, there is a trinity of trinities. If we can look at the universe and notice these qualities within it, is it really all that difficult to imagine that God can exist as a Trinity of persons? Furthermore, I think this “trinity of trinities” exhibits the Divine Fingerprint on it.
And as Christian philosophers (and logicians) JP Moreland and William L. Craig assert: “Nothing in Scripture warrants us in thinking that . . . each person of the Trinity is identical to the whole Trinity.” God the Father, for example, is not identical to the Trinity because he himself is not a Trinity. On the contrary, the Father is a part of (or a person within) the Trinity. To say that the Father is God, then, means that the Father is divine by virtue of his membership in the Trinity. The same goes for the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is not illogical to say that there is one God in three distinct persons, each of whom is divine. No contradiction there.
As for the DT, no, it isn’t fully articulated in scripture. The JWs are right about that at least. However the New Testament portrays Jesus in decidedly divine terms and the early Christians worshiped him just as they did God the Father. This is confirmed all over the NT.
You could cite scriptural and historical evidence all day long proving that the early church worshiped a Trinity (don’t worry, I won’t!)
So the doctrine of the Trinity is simply the attempt of the early fathers to make explicit what in scripture is implicit. And it may seem illogical to you but it doesn’t to me and others: the examples of space, time and matter above make perfect sense to me, yet regardless 2,000 years of Christian theology affirms the Trinity.
I thought you might be a Jehovah’s Witness because your arguments sound a lot like the Watchtower’s, but you aren’t. Fair enough.
Pax.
Lee.
Lee, thanks for the link, but I’ve seen it before. The author makes what I consider several inferential mistakes. He begins his “solution” by appealing to composite analogies. He uses them to show how we can “conceptualize” different features of one and the same reality, moving from singular to plural to describe the same thing. From there he argues that these features are relational to the one but are nonetheless real and aspects of the one and not merely parts. And then he tries to show how that solves the logical “paradox” of the Trinity. I think he fails across the board.
First, he insists that his account isn’t Modalism because the distinctions he highlights are real distinctions, but this misstates Modalism. On Modalism, the F, S & HS are real aspects of God conceptualized and operating in different ways. So, his account denies Modalism on arbitrary grounds.
Second, we conceptualize God’s justice, mercy, judgment, etc., as real and “different” features or characteristics of the one God, but they are all actually one in Him. God IS justice, God IS mercy, etc. Though “we” would say that judgment isn’t the same as mercy and that those attributes are real, we would not say that they are different persons. Our conception is multiple, but in God it is one and undivided. That’s partly why we have to use analogical terms to describe God’s essence because He is a completely different kind of being than we are. Everything that exists is composite except God. He is the only one whose essence is to exist, and He is the only one who cannot be divided. If there is any “division” in Him, it is from our perspective. Hence, the distinction and difference is rooted in our conception of Him, not as He actually is. For if there were a real division in Him, He would be composite by definition.
In order for Bohn to sustain the Trinity, he has to show why a person isn’t the same as an attribute, and this he fails to do. Merely stating that is the case does not make it so. As stated, he relies on an argument similar to Aquinas who insisted that the divine essence is what makes the persons common (principle of commonality – PC), and the principle of distinction (PD) is what makes them different. Yet, as the Bohn also states, the distinction is the relation of each person to another. But the relation is necessarily the divine essence else the relation is a creature. But what makes the persons common (PC) cannot be what makes them distinct (PD). There must be something about F that makes him really distinct from S & HS. Rejecting that means it is possible for F, S & HS to be distinct without differing in any way. So, PC cannot be identical with PD, yet the PD is the divine essence which is a logical contradiction if it is one of substantial identity. If not, then the only solution is that the distinction is notional or conceptual, and that gives you Modalism.
Okay. Granted all of this for the moment. Do you object to the idea of Father, Son and Spirit all being divine or just to the Nicene formulation of the Trinity?
Christian philosopher William L. Craig describes the Trinity in this way:
“So God is a tri-personal being. He is a being with three centers of self-consciousness in contrast to human persons who are one being with one center of self-consciousness.”
Pax.
Lee.
I do not object to the concept of divinity for the F, S & HS, but I also do not find any rational construct for a Trinity.
As to Craig’s formulation, his approach is significantly at odds with the majority Trinitarian view that God is absolutely simple. If God has three centers of self-consciousness, then God is a composite of the same. As I noted above, a composite Godhead is logically at odds with itself.
Quite briefly, atheists can say a lot of things, but their arguments fail. Our arguments for God’s existence address all of them, and we never fall back to a “realm” beyond the reach of logic. So, I think your reference is disanalogous.
The NT presents Jesus claiming to be/say/do things the Old Testament claims only YHWH can be/say/do, such as be the I AM, accept worship, forgive sins, be the Alpha and Omega, be the Good Shepherd, be the Living Water, etc. Paul and the author of Hebrews are as clear as day that Jesus was/is God incarnate. And the NT describes the Holy Spirit as doing/being things that only YHWH gets to do
The Jehovah’s Witnesses essentially teach polytheism the way the New World Translation translates John 1:1, which says that “the Word was a god.” This is polytheism plain and simple. They claim that it simply means that Jesus was merely “like God” but was *not* God, that he was a divine, created being, the first created being, who then assisted God in creating the universe but this is just the 4th c. Arian heresy reworked slightly. Their arguments regarding the use/non-use of the definte article in John 1:1 are tedious and are shared by almost no academic scholars. None of their NWT translators was even a GK scholar to begin with.
The Trinity may not be logical, but it’s in the New Testament.
Pax.
Lee.
Lee writes:
I don’t know what your earlier references to Jehovah’s Witnesses is designed to prove, but I’ll again say for the record that I am not a Jehovah’s Witness or any variation thereof.
Now, if you acknowledge that the Trinity is illogical and that it must be believed because it’s in the New Testament (NT), then you must concomitantly assert that the NT is illogical at least insofar as the Trinity is concerned. If the Bible or at least the NT is not written rationally, then we have no basis for teaching anything from its pages. The words become an incoherent mass of symbols and if inversions of anything that’s stated (impossible to discern if we’re not committed to identity, contradiction and excluded middle) are equally true, then we have no basis to sift fact from fiction.
And if your definition of the Trinity is allowed to assert logical contradictions, then to be consistent, you must allow everybody else to hold contradictory Godhead views as well. By doing so, you undermine any effort you make to refute their views (as you attempted to do in this post against JWs), for they can equally appeal to the “truth” of incoherence.
Agreed. I believe there are various translations of On the Heavens. I don’t know which one Weigall used, but it is different than the one I referenced.
Scalia, how are Father, Son and Spirit each divine if there is no Trinity? Are they equally divine? If so, how so if there’s no Trinity?
If you remove the Trinity you remove a foundational tenet of orthodox Christianity.
Pax.
Lee.
Lee, I don’t believe my concept of the Godhead is on-topic. From my reading of the lead post, this is a discussion about the cogency of the Trinity.
So, with that in mind, I’ll answer your question: As a Oneness Pentecostal, I believe that one God is called Father in that He is the creator, He robed Himself in humanity to save us and is therefore called “Son,” and as our Comforter, He is the Holy Spirit.
Ah. Oneness Pentecostalism. I honestly hadn’t considered that one. Modalism. Interesting.
Well, I would argue that your concept of the Godhead is on topic because if you don’t believe the Trinity is scriptural, certainly if you want me to seriously consider what you’re saying, then it seems to me that it falls to you to explain what the alternative is. If I shouldn’t believe the DT what *should* I believe in it’s place?
As I understand it, Oneness Pentecostals focus on the numerical oneness of God. However as NT scholar and theologian NT Wright says, the OT Shema had nothing to do with the numerical analysis of the inner being of God, but was only a polemical doctrine against pagan polytheism and dualism, not an analysis of God’s inner existence.The apostle Paul basically reinterprets the Shema, the Jewish prayer form Deuteronomy affirming the oneness of God, tweaking it to include Jesus, which makes no sense unless Jesus is divine yet somehow distinct from the Father in some very important way.
“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.” (I Cor. 1:8)
This reworking of the Shema by Paul cannot be explained without reference to the idea that God exists simultaneously as both Father and Son. Paul differentiates between the two.
John is clear that “in the beginning” the Word was “with God” and the Word “was God.” How can John say the Word was *with* God if God in his inner being is numerically one? John’s point is that Jesus preexisted creation as the Word, the Word made flesh. But why bother with such unnecessary distinctions unless God and the Word are separate in some way?
And scripture on several occasions depicts Jesus praying to the Father, which makes no sense according to modalism. How can one “mode” of God pray to another “mode” of God? To me that really *is* illogical.
And of course Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize in the names of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a useless distinction unless God exists as a trinity of persons.
The NT authors had ways of saying that Jesus and the Spirit were simply “modes” of God if that’s what they meant. The Jews in John 8 tried to stone Jesus, not for claiming to be simply a “mode” of God, but in describing himself as “I AM” for claiming to *be* God.
I still think my space-time analogy works for the Trinity.
Pax.
Lee.
Exactly! And this is why the Trinity is an invention.
That is illogical. Just because something is foundational doesnt mean it is an invention.
You are ASSERTING something in a very illogical fashion. You cannot logically get from “The Trinity is foundational to the faith” to “They made the Trinity up.”
The Trinity is foundational to mainstream Christianity, but not to a sect such as the Christadelphians who, like me, also consider it is a manufactured doctrine – ”made up”.
Oh, and you do know where and when (more or less) it was introduced into Christian doctrine I presume?
The Trinity is foundational to historical Christianity.
Yes, it is introduced throughout the New Testament. There is Trinitarian thinking all the way through.
No it isn’t. There is no evidence of the Trinity in the bible. It is a theological construct.
Again, you are aware when and where it was introduced into Christian dogma, yes?
Then clearly you have never laid eyes on the New Testament. The Nicene Creed that uses the term “Trinity” reflects the early first century Church’s teaching about God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. If you reject the notion that the New Testament teaches about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I don’t know what to say.
No early Christian believed the concept of the Trinity. It did not enter into supposed Christianity until after the council at Nicaea in the year 325.
If it was agreed upon from the get go then what on earth was someone like Arius all up in everyone’s business for?
The church invented the doctrine, period.
No, again, you clearly haven’t ever read the NT. Sure, the actual word “Trinity” isn’t in the NT–but the use of the word reflects what the early Christians believed. And Arius was RESOUNDLY rejected, both at the original Alexandrian council headed by the patriarch of Alexandria, and again at the Nicene Council. It wasn’t even close. The only reason Arianism gained steam after that, and for the most of the 4th century, is because there were a handful of Arian bishops who convinced Constantine’s successors to take POLITICAL action and to forcibly impose Arianism on the Churches.
Your contentions are just historically and provably wrong.
If the Trinity originated in the bible then the character Jesus of Nazareth would have been explicit – and he clearly was not, which could have been one reason why the disciples are portrayed as being as savvy as damp bread.
Thank you for your personal assessment of my historical knowledge and my tongue in cheek but nevertheless on the money take of Nicaea.
Have you by chance ever read the edicts issued by the early church regarding their version of orthodox Christianity?
Again, the Nicene Creed is articulating in a formulaic way the Orthodox Christian teaching and belief about the Triune God from the very beginning of the Church. Read any of Paul’s letters, where he gives a Trinitaran greeting of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” No, he doesn’t use the word “Trinity,” but all throughout his letters (and elsewhere in the NT), he speaks of God the Father as God, as Christ the Son as God, and as the Holy Spirit as God’s Spirit, yet distinct at the same time. It’s there in the NT–to deny that is to deny reality.
For the record, I am Orthodox. So yes, I’m familiar.
Yes, in the absence of anything clear and definitive we are talking about your (Orthodox) interpretation .
Good! Then you will know full well that, there was no universal agreement and that ”interpretations” that were deemed heretical were brutally put down.
However dissenting views were put down in the past, they are not put down here. I am as opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity (DT) as you, but Joel has been most gracious to allow me to defend my views here.
I will say, however, that you are not representing anti-trinitarians very well. Your first post is entirely illogical, and Joel is correct to point that out. The fact that something is foundational does not in itself mean that it is invented. There is no logical connection whatsoever between your premise and your conclusion.
Moreover, instead of making claims that you know will be disputed, simply lay out your argument. If you really know what you’re talking about, then you’ll have no problem providing an argument defending your views. I’ve done so here numerous times. You seem to content yourself with making snarky remarks. If it’s your intent to persuade, you’re failing miserably. And if it’s your intent to simply insult people, then perhaps you need a spiritual tuneup.
Sorry you don’t enjoy my approach. I really don’t care for the philosophical side of such discussions or semantics, which invariably become nothing more than a theological two step from those who are hell-/pun intended) on defending the supernatural clap-trap that is the foundation of Christianity.
The world has had a belly full of such nonsense and it’s about time such profane garbage was shown the door.
If my paltry insults disturb you that much perhaps you should drop the faux indignation and turn your attention to more productive issues, such as addressing the fallacious nonsense of Hell, and ”sin” and it’s indoctrination into children?
Enjoyment is irrelevant. You are either attempting to be persuasive or you’re not. If you are, then you need to construct better arguments. If not, then you’re wasting your time. Thinkers are persuaded by good arguments. “[P]altry insults” fail every time.
To sort of quote Buddy the Elf, “Arky is an angry elf!” 😜
I donpt have yo be. The onus is on Joel – or you as a Christian – to provide evidence. . I presume you are familiar with the term?
And yet you are a Christian – what convinced you? Certainly not evidence.
But since you’re not interested in offering good arguments, that leaves your “certainly not evidence” hanging irrelevantly in midair. You haven’t offered one good argument in this thread. In fact, on your own account you’d rather fling “paltry insults” than take the time to offer a good argument. That makes you a troll, and I definitely have no interest in interacting with a troll.
And … you just made my point.
No arguments, thank you very much. No semantics, no theological two step.
Evidence if you please …. And you can start by answering the question regarding what convinced you.
If you can’t offer any then that makes you the troll … and a very poor apologist to boot.
Off you go, Scalia … the floor is yours.
You’re having a hard time following your own comments, let alone anybody else’s.
This is a Christian blog and the particular topic of this thread is the Trinity. You came here of your own accord and made the claim that the Trinity is a man-made (invented) doctrine. I happen to agree with that assessment (remember?), but told you that you didn’t offer an argument in defense of that claim. Instead of providing a solid argument why you believe that it was invented, you turn around and ask me for an argument defending Christianity itself. You’ve really twisted yourself into knots.
Try to stay focused. You made a claim; now provide an argument. After all this time, it’s clear that you don’t have one, and as you’ve said, you’d rather fling insults or try to get somebody else to do what you have refused to do after all of these posts.
Unless you can come up with an argument to back your claim, consider this my last reply.
I’ve been around Christian bloggers long enough to know that arguments are for those who do not have evidence.
So I don’t ”do” arguments.
And if you truly think your little veiled threat ”my last reply” makes you come across as some sort of top notch debating intellectual you are sorely mistaken. You just sound petulant and childish.
But I’ll make you a deal.
As you are the Christian that does not believe in the Trinity why don’t you ditch the argument side of things – they are always so boring and long-winded in any case – and simply point out to Joel the evidence that flatly refutes the claim.
And then you can show a little integrity and tell me what was the evidence that convinced you of the veracity of your religious belief. That at least would give you a degree of credibility.
So … to reiterate. Evidence.
Once again, Scalia. The floor is yours.
Well, it’s not a “threat”; it’s a promise. But since you ask me what my arguments are, I remind you that this thread is about the Trinity. I have laid out my anti-trinitarian argument is explicit detail here. Scroll to your heart’s content.
Again … I asked you to present evidence.
Not arguments.
And it’s quite typical that you would shy away from providing evidence for your conversion. Or were you indoctrinated from the knee?
Are you in the second grade? Evidence is NOTHING without supporting argumentation. And who do you think you are to demand evidence when you’ve been repeatedly asked to back up the claim YOU MADE HERE. You adamantly refuse to defend your assertion that the Trinity was invented, and you have the gall to demand evidence from others?
Goodbye, for good.
Odd isn’t it? You threaten to withdraw from the discussion like a petulant child and then you come back and accuse me of being in the second grade.
How droll.
Let me give you a couple of examples.
The religious claim is that Adam and Eve were created by Yahweh.
The evidence of the HGP flatly refutes this.
No argument necessary.
The argument claims Moses led millions out of slavery and eventually with the help of someone called Joshua conquered Canaan.
The evidence flatly refutes this.
Re: The Trinity. The evidence refutes it so why would I need to make an argument?
Furthermore – I have you, a Christian who is technically on my side, or at least agrees that it is a religious construct. Aren’t I the lucky one?
So, your conversion? Indoctrination, yes?
Really? Betcha a dollar?
Hahaha! Arky: “I don’t ‘do’ arguments!” Ya think???
Okay, look at these verses, Arky–tell me what you think they are saying. Is there anything in these verses that MIGHT imply that Jesus the Son is equal to God the Father in ANY WAY? What do you think? ANY indication AT ALL?
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (1Co 1:3 ESV)
Paul, an apostle–not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead– (Gal 1:1 ESV)
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(Phi 2:5-11 ESV)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him.
17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
(Col 1:15-19 ESV)
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (Rev 22:13 ESV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
(Joh 1:1-4 ESV)
I thought you were going to present evidence for the trinity, Joey?
Hahaha….Okay Arky.
I knew would wouldn’t address anything: You don’t “do” that sort of thing (i.e. rational discussion and argument).
Come on, try. I know you can do it–what do those verses say about Jesus the Son and God the Father? You tell me.
What ever you choose to interpret them to say. Isn’t this what you have been at pains to tell me?
Furthermore, how in earth can you trust the veracity of the text in the first place?
After all, it is riddled with pretty much every conceivable error, from historical, geographical, biological,to interpolation, and forgery.
What could possibly cause you to accept such nonsense in the first place, Joelly?
Arky, try to follow…
You wanted evidence that the concept of the Trinity was NOT “made up” by the Nicene Council.
Part of the doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father and the Son are equally God.
I provided verses from documents of the early Church, written between AD 50-AD 95 that shows CLEAR evidence that the early Christians viewed Jesus the Son as equal to God the Father.
***NOW LISTEN UP: Even if you don’t believe what the early Christians wrote, the EVIDENCE and FACT is that they DID IN FACT view Jesus the Son as equal to God the Father. THEREFORE, your contention that the Nicene Creed “made it up” is provably false. As I said before, the doctrine of the Trinity was based on what they read in the NT, and as I have shown evidence for, there are numerous places in the NT that declare the Son is equal with the Father.
Try to follow Joelly…
Except that they are not….and there is no evidence to suggest they are.
Furthermore, you are quoting from anonymous documents, known to be riddled with error.
I’m quoting from the earliest Christian documents we have. Those are EVDIENCE of what the earliest Christians wrote and believed.
Please go away, you are the poster child of what rabid, militant atheism does to a person’s brain–it makes you dumber.
Really? The texts that supposedly quote the character Jesus of Nazareth illustrate that even he did not consider himself to be Yahweh,
Even the Scribes and Pharisees understood that when he claimed to forgive sins, that he was claiming to do what only God could do…ergo…
Besides, the letters of Paul, that PRE-DATE the writing of the Gospels show what I have already pointed out regarding what the earliest Christians believed.
You really want to keep this up?
Not in Mark,neither in Matthew and not in Luke.
Neither In any of the writings of Paul is there any indication that Jesus said such things.
It’s completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that’s what he was declaring about himself.
You really want to carry on?
5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts,
7 “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
(Mar 2:5-7 ESV)
2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
(Mat 9:2-3 ESV)
20 And when he saw their faith, he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”
21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
(Luk 5:20-21 ESV)
***So yes, in Matthew, in Mark, and in Luke. And, again, in the writings of Paul as well as John you have passages that I’ve already quoted that attest to the fact that the early first century Church viewed Jesus as the Son of God who was equal to God.
So again, there is your evidence. The more you deny it, the more you show that you have a closet full of tinfoil hats. You are denying basic reality regarding what the early first century Church claimed about Jesus. And therefore, by extension, we see that Nicaea’s doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t made up out of thin air–it was based on what they had read in the NT letters and Gospels ever since the first century.
No … the passages suggest this was what the scribes said. Jesus never claimed he was Yahweh and his disciples never thought this of him either.
For you to now take this and make the outrageous leap that this obviously indicates the Trinity is simply plain ignorance and nothing more than wishful thinking.
Please stop. You are clearly a reality-denying troll. You have zero credibility. Everyone is laughing at you.
1. When it comes to the NT documents, no one doubts there are extremely reliable when it comes to understanding what first century Christians believed and proclaimed. Therefore, as I’ve conclusively shown, it is quite clear that the first century Christians believed Jesus the Son was equal with God the Father. They also clearly believed that the Holy Spirit was an entity equal with both the Father and the Son as well. And therefore, your assertion that the concept of the Trinity was simply “made up” during the Nicene Council out of whole cloth is provably false. Yes, the word “Trinity” isn’t in the NT, but it is quite clear that the word “Trinity” was an attempt to describe what was already in the NT.
2. You shifting the goalposts to question whether or not the documents were written by whom it is claimed is another topic that simply deflects from the fact that you are clearly wrong about your claim that the “Trinity” was “made up” in AD 325.
3. Your assertion that if the Trinitarian understanding of God was so clear that Arianism never would have developed is also foolish. The clarity of a belief doesn’t negate the possibility that someone can start teaching something false. As it stands, the creeds largely encapsulated the fundamental beliefs of Christianity that were there from the beginning.
4. The reason why Theodosius made Orthodox Christianity the official religion of the Byzantine Empire was precisely because (A) the handful of Arian bishops had won over Constantine’s son who proceeded to use political power to persecute Orthodox Christians, and then (B) Julian the Apostate tried to use political power to enforce and re-establish paganism on the people.
So please, you’ve been exposed of the blathering fraud you are. You are a troll. Go away.
1.
How odd, then , that the disciples did not believe this for one second.
Maybe because Jesus denied it as well, perhaps?
2. It was a doctrine. It does not appear in the Gospels. The church created it.
3.If we are dealing with Truth(sic) then it should have been obvious from the get go. Even the character Jesus of Nazareth does not admit to or teach this Trinity and, as mentioned in point 1. he made absolutely no assertions to this effect.
As has been stated often enough. interpretation is the key. Ask Arius, ask the Christadelphians or any non- trinitarian.
4. From Theodosius II and later Valentinian III in 429.
”Anyone who converts an orthodox Christian from the Catholic Church to another religion or heretical sect will have their property confiscated and be executed.”
Can you feel the love and tolerance? It just oozes doesn’t it?
There are more such delightful edicts if you’re keen on reading them?
1. I provided numerous examples from the first century NT documents that reflect this belief–so you are wrong.
2. Like I said before, the doctrine of the Trinity was not made up out of whole cloth in AD 325. It reflected what was in the NT documents already.
3. Again, we’ve been over this.
4. No one is denying bad things have been done in Church history. Your point here is completely irrelevent to the point at hand.
Basic Fact: The doctrine of the Trinity was developed to reflect what was already seen in the first century documents. My examples of various places in the NT where we see Jesus the Son is put forth as equal to God the Father prove this.
End of discussion.
Apparently, not only can you not grasp basic argumentation, you cannot recognize evidence, nor can you understand what “we are done” means. Give it up. From here on, your comments will be deleted, like they were last time when you refused to stop.
Ever see Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”? Are you familiar with the black knight? That’s you in this conversation. Your legs and arms are cut off and you are a little stump on the ground…and still you claiming to be invincible.
Lee, I help moderate a political blog, so I’m quite sensitive to off-topic matters. This line of discussion is definitely off-topic. I merely answered your question. We’ll need approval from the site administrator in order to proceed along this line, so unless you have more matters to discuss with respect to the Trinity, this will be my last post.
Very briefly, your appeal to what makes “sense” is itself nonsensical since you’re on record as not caring whether or not the Trinity is logical. As I’ve at least twice stated in this thread, if logical conundrums are acceptable for trinitarians, they are acceptable for all. You thus have no basis to object.
If, however, you acknowledge that logical inversions must be rejected, then whatever the Bible teaches about the Godhead, it cannot be the Trinity. In essence, the only two options are Oneness or a form of Unitarianism.
None the the scriptural examples you cite even touch the cogency of the Oneness doctrine, but again, until we get approval to proceed, I’ll refrain from commenting.
Hey, feel free to continue the discussion. As long as it remains civil (which I have no doubt it will), I have no problem. I’ve been enjoying reading the back and forth.
Thanks, Joe. I’ve been trying to reply, but for some reason, WordPress wouldn’t let me do so on your main site.
That is weird…(FYI…I’m Joel, like the prophet, not Joe, who runs the local hot dog stand! Haha)
Sorry about that, Joel. 🙂
Scalia, I mean no offense. I, too have been a moderator before.
But as someone who’s spent a bit of time here and without putting words in his mouth I don’t think Dr. Anderson is bothered by this discussion. The topic is, after all, CS Lewis’ description of the Trinity in *Mere Christianity.* If you tell everyone reading this blog that Lewis’ explanation, indeed the very concept of the DT, is illogical, you might expect a little bit of push-back from some of us like me who don’t agree with you. If I posted in a vegan forum that everyone there should eat steak I might expect some resistance to my position, no? You say the orthodox definition of the Trinity is wrong. Fine. Offer me an alternative that harmonizes with scripture.
Besides which, I haven’t conceded that the Nicene definition of the Trinity is “illogical.” What I said is that even if it *is* illogical (which I’m not ready to concede), the doctrine itself is implicit in the NT. Smarter people than myself, such as CS Lewis and William L. Craig, have defended the logic of the Trinity. No that doesn’t make it true, but it does lend some weight to the idea if professional philosophers and logicians such as Prof. Craig have no intellectual qualms with it.
Lee.
Lee, I have a pretty thick hide, so no offense taken. And I don’t mind my views being challenged or “pushed back.” However, I definitely disagree with you over the topic of this thread, so I will wait for official word before proceeding on that tangent.
If you’re not conceding the illogic of the Trinity, then it is incumbent on you to resolve the contradictions I’ve observed. You cannot rationally convince me of something I do not understand, and I do not believe that I’ve been obstinate either. I have addressed every one of your points to the best of my ability. If you or others believe that I have made inferential mistakes, I’m quite open to hearing you out.
You have, however, stated that even if the DT is illogical, it is still taught by the Bible. And as I have observed, that means that the Bible teaches contradictions. That was really a faux pas on your part which I think contributed to my feeling that you conceded the point.
If the contradictions cannot be resolved, there’s really no way to proceed because we’ll be in terminological discord. Since we apparently agree that the Scriptures do not teach logical inversions, then whatever they teach with respect to the Godhead, it cannot be the Trinity. It is therefore incumbent on you to clear that up because you are the claimant, not me. True enough, I have claimed that the DT is unintelligible, but I have brought my arguments to the table. So far, you’ve not directly engaged them, so my objections remain.
If I tell you that you must believe fjejejdj in order to be saved, you’ll rightly ask me what that is. If I reply that it is slkekdk, you’ll rightly call me on it too. More importantly, if I reply that the latter is actually the negation of the former, I shouldn’t be surprised if you call me on a logical contradiction. I’d never say, “Well, let’s just brush that under the rug and move forward.” That’s not the way you achieve progress.
Your time-space analogy cannot work for the reasons I’ve stated. Anybody can appeal to a logical no-man’s-land to side-step a point. So, if it’s an “out” for you, it’s an out for everybody. You’ve thus undercut any warrant to critique another point of view.
Moreover, I am under no obligation whatsoever to offer an alternative to the Trinity. One does not rationally follow the other for the logical conflicts do not disappear with my inability to offer something in its place. If I tell you that the vacuum cleaner you’re using will not pick up dirt, it is irrelevant that I cannot provide you with one that does. The dirt remains regardless my ability to do something about it.
So, even if we get the green light, I think we need to settle the original question first.
Here’s another way to think about it. Perichoresis.
If the orthodox definition of the Trinity required one to believe that God is one being existing as three persons or is one person existing as three persons that would be a logical contradiction, however the DT affirms that God is *one* in *nature* yet *three* in person.
Orthodox Trinitarianism maintains that three distinct *subsistences* equally participate in one divine *substance,* and that this divine substance is equally present in those three subsistences. ,Even if one subsistence was somehow greater than the other subsistences, nevertherless in some way, they still all equally participate in the divine substance. The doctrine of *perichoresis* teaches that, while the three persons are distinct, they interpenetrate so that one is always present with the other two and the other two are always present with the one. In other words, the subsistences are non-competitive with one another. The subsistences are distinct with regard to relation and operations. The Father is distinct in how He relates to the Son and the Spirit, and he has a distinct operation in relation to creation. These aren’t “properties,” but relations.
God is thus one in his essence, or substance, but subsists in three “persons” or “hypostases.” A couple of English equivalents to hypostases might be “energies” or “operations,” of course not intended to imply that they are impersonal, but simply to describe how they are distinguished.
Oxford Prof. and theologian Alister McGrath writes that perichoresis:
“allows the individuality of the persons to be maintained, while insisting that each person shares in the life of the other two. An image often used to express this idea is that of a ‘community of being,’ in which each person, while maintaining its distinctive identity, penetrates the others and is penetrated by them.”
One way we see perichoresis at work is John 17:1, where Jesus prays for the Father to glorify him, so that Jesus may glorify the Father.
I see nothing illogical here.
Certainly scripture affirms that nature reveals God however I would take that to refer to creation itself, as you yourself posted a few days ago from Rom. 1:20:
“Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse . . .”
Reason and logic certainly point to God however in and of themselves are inadequate for a full understanding of God and his nature, as God repeatedly reminds the Israelites through the prophet Isaiah:
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
If by human logic and reason we could fully comprehend God he wouldn’t *be* God. Our human reason was/is corrupted by sin and our human nature thus is imperfect. Thus human reasoning only gets us so far. But again, I don’t think a proper, orthodox definition of the Trinity violates the rules of logic
Pax.
Lee.
Thanks for your reply, Lee. I’m super busy at the moment, so it’ll be a little bit before I can give a complete answer, so I’ll just briefly state that I’ve already replied to the logic of this presentation in this thread. I’ll spell that out more explicitly in a subsequent post.
Moreover, I never said that humans can “fully comprehend” God. I said that the DT entails logical contradictions. There’s a world of difference between the two.
So, since the divine substance is equally present in each subsistent, then the substance is the principle of commonality between the persons. They are divine because they equally share the substance. Yet, they are also distinct from each other because they are each subsistent.
A subsistence, then, is distinct not as to essence, but as to relation.
This is ontologically imprecise. How can the “Father” relate to the Son unless he were already distinct? If the distinction itself is the relation, then how can one relate to another unless one were already distinct? God “relates” analogously to the world in one sense, but God is ontologically distinct from the world. This problem emerges further as we go along.
So, each person is God because of the divine essence but distinct in a personal operation (as opposed to a property).
Of course, if each person is God according to the divine essence, then the essence is the principle of commonality (PC). The PC is what makes each person common. Pursuant to what you further write, the principle of distinction (PD) is the relation between each person. The PC cannot be identical with the PD for that would assert that what makes each person common is not what makes each person common—a straight contradiction.
Moreover, the PC cannot account for the real distinction between the persons. If we only have PC, then there would be no distinction at all. If 1, 2 & 3 have everything in common, then 1=2=3. There must be something in 1 that differs from 2 & 3 (the same goes with the other numbers) in order to be really distinct. To reject that would mean that it is possible for 1, 2 & 3 to be really distinct without differing in any way, which is of course absurd.
So, since we’ve established that the PC (divine essence) cannot be identical with the PD (relation), then it follows that the PD is not the divine essence. And if PD is not the divine essence, then what is it? Theologians of all stripes concur that whatever is not the divine essence is a creature, but that would make the persons creatures and not God. Hence, we have a contradiction: God is not a creature and God is a creature.
Aquinas’ solution was to insist that the relations are “no different” than the divine essence and that they “are one and the same.” Obviously, that’s really the only solution because of the blatant absurdity of putting the relations outside the essence. But that maneuver doesn’t work because it makes the PC=PD. And that is the other contradiction (noted above): What makes the persons common is not what makes them common.
Another maneuver is to admit composition in the essence. And indeed, if there is an aspect of the essence that is unique to each person, composition cannot be avoided. And if you acknowledge composition, then that commits the contradictions I identified above.
One way to avoid any contradiction is to acknowledge that the distinction exists only “in its mode of intelligibility,” as Aquinas put it. But in that case, the distinction is notional. That yields Modalism, not the Trinity.
The DT is stated and defended by early fathers such as Justin Martyr who wrote in the 150s AD. This is way too close to the NT canon and thus too recent a time-frame for the DT to be an innovation. Whereas the Oneness view of the Trinity is less than a hundred years old and is only held by a small number of people. By contrast the Nicene definition of the Trinity has been believed by the Church Universal for nearly 1700 years by Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. I’m generally wary of new and innovative doctrines.
Then there are the “nomina sacra,” in which the divine names such as *Kyrios,* *Theos,* *Iesous*, *Christos*, and *Pneuma* in 2nd and 3rd c. texts of the New Testament, are abbreviated (KY, OY, IC, XC and PN), in a similar fashion to the Jewish custom of abbreviating the divine name (YHWH). This indicates that these names were regarded as sacred, too holy to be written out.
Besides all of this, Scripture affirms the concept of the Trinity in so many places that I think you have to purposely not see it to dispute it.
For example, it’s affirmed in Genesis 1:20 where YHWH says: “Let *us* make man in *our* image.” The context doesn’t allow God to be referring to angels because they didn’t create and man isn’t created in their image.
Genesis 1:1-2 says:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
John 1:14 reads:
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
John 8:58-59:
“Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am.” So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.”
Jesus here makes a very explicit claim to deity, which his Jewish audience understands and takes offense at, attempting to stone him.
John 10:30-33:
“I and the Father are one.” Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Again, Jesus made explicit claims to deity for which his audience, again, attempts to stone him.
John 14:10-11:
“Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.”
Luke 1:35 has Gabriel using the Trinitarian formula in the annunciation to Mary:
“The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”
And in I Cor. 8:6 Paul essentially reinterprets the Shema, the passage from Deuteronomy affirming God’s oneness, tweaking it to include Jesus:
“yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”
This would be simply incredible, and heretical, unless Paul thought that Jesus is in some way divine and equal with God.
Then we see the Trinitarian formula in II Cor. 13:14:
“May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
Ephesians 4:4-6:
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
Philippians 2:5-8:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!”
Colossians 1:15:
“The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
The preexistence of the Son, who is the “image of the invisible God” and who created all things.
Colossians 2:9 affirms the deity of Christ in no uncertain terms:
“For in him [Christ Jesus] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily . . .”
I Peter 1:1-2:
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.”
And of course in the gospels Jesus claims to be and do things that the OT says only YHWH can be/do, such as be I AM, accept worship, forgive sins, be the Good Shepherd, etc.
These are just a few scriptural texts that affirm, in a nascent form, the concept of the Trinity. The Nicene fathers merely extrapolated from what was already implicit in scripture to compose the Nicene formulation.
Pax.
Lee.
And we would say that none of the verses you cite correspond with how you’re construing them. More on that later…
I’m certainly no expert on Aquinas’ Trinitarian formulation but I read some articles discussing his Trinitarian thought.
According to Aristotle and his commentators, the term “relation” refers to a property that allies the thing that has it with something else. Thus the philosopher speaks of a relation as that which makes something *of*, *than*, or *to* some other thing (Aristotle, *Categories*, Book 7, 6b1). For example, what is larger is larger *than* something else; to have knowledge is to have knowledge *of* something; to incline is to incline *toward* something, etc. (Ibid. 6b5).
On the one hand, Thomas’ Aquinas’ understanding of “relation” as it applies to creatures is identical to Aristotle’s view, that is, a relation is an *accidental* property that signifies a connection to something else. On the other hand, when Aquinas speaks of “relation” in regard to the Trinity it doesn’t *have* to denote a property that allies different substances, but on the contrary, can also refer to distinctions that are *internal* to a substance. This second construal is the way Aquinas understands the notion of “relation” as it applies to God. For the Angelic Doctor there is within God a relation of persons, each of whom enjoys a characteristic the others don’t have. Thus God the Father has the characteristic of paternity, whereas God the Son has the characteristic of filiation, and so on. These characteristics are unique to each person of the Godhead, thus creating a kind of opposition that connotes real distinction.
However each of the aforementioned relations not only *inhere* in the divine essence, but are also *identical* to it, in the sense that each member of the Trinity is identical to God. From this one can see that relation as it exists in God is *not* as it is for creatures, an *accidental* property, because the relation, as it is identical to God, doesn’t add to or modify the divine substance in any way.
Aquinas writes that “whatever has an accidental existence in creatures, when considered as transferred to God, has a substantial existence; for there is no accident in God; since all in Him is His essence. So, in so far as relation has an accidental existence in creatures, relation really existing in God has the existence of the divine essence in no way distinct therefrom.” (ST Ia 28.2) Seen this way, it is somewhat misleading to say that relation is something that “inheres in” God; for the relation is identical to God himself.Thus, if I understand this argument, the Principle of Commonality and Principle of Distinction can be and are identical.
But you may still ask how God can have a perfect unity yet still comprise a plurality of persons. Well, think of a glazed clay bowl which is constituted of two distinct substances–a lump of clay and a glazed bowl. While the lump of clay and the bowl are distinct things, they’re nevertheless one material object. If one thinks of the lump of clay and the configuration by which that lump of clay is a bowl as a relation of two things, then one can see that relation does not concern anything that isn’t already identical to the object (the glazed clay bowl). I would submit that such an account is similar to the one Aquinas has in mind when attempting to reconcile the unity of God with the distinctions within the Godhead. Thus, while each person of the Godhead is distinct from each other he is not distinct from God. Again, the Principle of Commonality and the Principle of Distinction are one and the same. Thus I see no logical fallacy in the Trinity or the definition of it I posted above.
Pax.
Lee.
Lee, I’m quite familiar with the theology of Aquinas, and however it is described, if the PD is identical with the PC (PD=PC) then you are saying that what makes the persons distinct is not what makes the persons distinct. For if the PC is the divine essence and the PD is the divine essence, then you are asserting a logical contradiction, unless you impose composition in the essence.
Aquinas writes in ST 1.40.2, “the persons agree in essence, it only remains to be said that the persons are distinguished from each other by the relations.” So, their agreement in essence is distinct from their relations. Indeed, he says, “the relations themselves are not distinguished from each other so far as they are identified with the essence” (ST 1.39.1). In other words, the distinction is not accounted for with respect to the essence; the distinction is in the relations. So, Aquinas makes it clear that the PC is not the PD. You cannot distinguish the persons on the basis of what they have in common. They can only be distinguished on the basis of what they do not have in common. That’s what distinction is all about.
Your glazed bowl is discordant with Thomism. The glaze is considered an accidental property of the bowl (non-essential to its being a bowl). So, though a glazed bowl is considered one object, it is nonetheless a composite of bowl/glaze, act/potency, form/matter, substance/accident, essence/existence. Since there is no principle of continuity in either part, its explanation necessarily lies in something else. As Aquinas would say, “Whatever is moved (changed) is moved by another.” And since the bedrock of Thomism is divine simplicity (God has no material or metaphysical parts), a glazed bowl by definition cannot serve to illustrate the Trinity.
Since you introduce composition into the essence, your appeal to Aquinas’ teaching is non sequitur and thus fails to demonstrate how the PD can be identical with the PC without contradiction.
As I stated, the PC cannot in principle be the PD, for that asserts that the very thing which makes the persons the same is what makes them different. To reject that distinction is to insist that it is possible for the persons to be really distinct without differing in any way.
It is clear from Aquinas that he rejects an accidental relational construct within the essence and he states more than once that a relation is the same as the essence itself (to both avoid composition and asserting that the persons are creatures). He does so unsuccessfully because in all his answers to objections, he never addresses the obvious contradiction it asserts. The argument that, Whatever makes something common is equivalent to what makes something uncommon is the classic A=~A, which is a formal contradiction.
To argue that what is common is what is distinct is to turn language on its head. “Same,” means “no difference,” and “distinct” is a difference of some kind. You can make the construct work but only if you introduce composition or if the distinction is notional.
In 1.29 Aquinas writes:
“Thus it is manifest that relation really existing in God is really the same as His essence and only differs in its mode of intelligibility; as in relation is meant that regard to its opposite which is not expressed in the name of essence. Thus it is clear that in God relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and the same.”
I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed but this looks to me like Aquinas is affirming the idea that in God relation and essence ARE identical.
And in 1.39 he writes:
“I answer that . . in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (Question [29], Article [4]), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.”
Again, maybe I’m misunderstanding the good Doctor, but here again Aquinas seems to reaffirm the notion that essence and person can be/are identical in God. He seems to be saying that there’s no real difference between essence and reason with respect to God.
As for my lump of clay/bowl analogy maybe I should’ve said simply a lump of clay and a clay bowl. Forget the glazing. The lump of clay and the finished bowl are two distinct things but they’re nevertheless still the *same material substance*, clay. That’s their *essence.* The lump of clay and the finished bowl are *both* made of clay even though they’re two distinct substances. Relation in this context thus doesn’t concern anything that isn’t already inherent/identical to the object of the bowl.
Pax.
Lee.
I meant to say that “there’s no real difference between essence and relation” with respect to God, above.
Pax.
Lee.
Respectfully, Lee, I don’t think you’re engaging my argument. You should recall that I cited Aquinas as stating that the relations are the essence and that the relations are the distinction. I am saying that he is asserting a logical contradiction pursuant to the other citations from his pen.
Let’s say you and I have blue eyes. We are the same with respect to the color of our eyes, but we cannot be different over the color of our eyes, unless we equivocate the term blue. We thus differ over other matters, not the color of our eyes. We are the “same” with respect to our humanity, but we are differentiated by our individual acts of existence in unique parcels of matter. Humanity makes us alike, our parcels of matter make us distinct. The words “same” and “different” have different meanings. To assert that they have the same meaning in the same context is to assert a contradiction (A≠~A).
Your bowl analogy still fails. The lump of clay is the matter and the “bowl” is the form. This is the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic (A-T) composite of form and matter. According to A-T, God cannot exist as a physical or metaphysical composite.
The fact that you continue to attempt to trade on a composite to illustrate the Trinity indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Thomistic metaphysics. Under Thomism, if God were a composite of form/matter or any kind of composition, He would not be God. Thus, appeals to composites fail by definition.
ST 1.28:
“I answer that . . . it is manifest that relation really existing in God is really the same as His essence and only differs in its mode of intelligibility; as in relation is meant that regard to its opposite which is not expressed in the name of essence. Thus it is clear that in God relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and the same.”
1. 28. Reply to Q 2:
“What is contained in the creature above and beyond what is contained in the meaning of relation, is something else besides that relation; whereas in God there is no distinction, but both are one and the same; and this is not perfectly expressed by the word “relation,” as if it were comprehended in the ordinary meaning of that term.”
This means that for Aquinas the relations are distinct as relations from one another; they are real relations.
But since there are no accidents in God, each of the relations is the same essence as the divine essence.
I explained how this isn’t a logical contradiction above.
When Thomas writes that:
“On the contrary, Everything which is not the divine essence is a creature. But relation really belongs to God; and if it is not the divine essence, it is a creature; and it cannot claim the adoration of latria; contrary to what is sung in the Preface: ‘Let us adore the distinction of the Persons, and the equality of their Majesty.'” he seems to be playing devil’s advocate here for a moment in order to advance his argument.
At the end of the day we’re talking about a divine mystery. Nobody perfectly understands it. But scripture and the great creeds affirm it, so I accept it. The Oneness Pentecostal interpretation only dates back to 1913 and with regards to the Trinity is Sabellianism tweaked a little.
But I’ll leave off for now.
Pax.
Lee.
Lee, no you didn’t explain why what you wrote isn’t a logical contradiction. You merely made assertions that the relations are distinct and are really the divine essence. You never showed how that’s possible under a real distinction. And you fail to realize that you’re quoting Aquinas against Aquinas, which is part of the point I’m making!
If the relation is the divine essence, then there is no principle of differentiation. It is no different than my saying that our humanity makes us alike and our humanity makes us different. No, that’s not the case. Our human essence makes us alike and our acts of existence make us different. So the option for Aquinas’ construct is either a straight logical contradiction (the essence is-is not the PD) or an extended contradiction (the relations are creatures). There is no other logical option.
Again (since you’re not addressing it): The words same and different have DIFFERENT meanings. Your argument is that they have the SAME meaning (PC=PD). That’s a straight inversion, Lee.
And, if at the end of the day you have to appeal to mystery to back out of a logical corner, so can everybody else. As I’ve told you several times now, you thus have no basis to refute anybody else’s beliefs. We can all cry, “Mystery!” and claim victory.
Joel and Lee,
I have to go out of town for a few days, and I don’t plan on posting while away. Besides, I don’t think Lee has been addressing my argument for a few posts now, so it’s probably best we call it quits. There’s no sense repeating myself.
Of course, if anybody would actually like to engage my argument, I’d be happy to step back in.
Thanks, Joel, for the opportunity to defend my views on your forum. You’ve been a gentleman.
All the best.
All the best to you, too.
Pax.
Lee.
And you come across as the saddest elf in the whole Keebler tree.
Who me? Or Arky? Haha…Keebler elves aren’t sad. They have fudge and cookies.
I thought atheists ditched the fedora. Are you wearing it ironically or do atheists still have a fedora fetish? They were cool until gnu atheism took it over.
Hi.
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Bye.
When it comes to the NT documents, no one doubts there are extremely reliable when it comes to understanding what first century Christians believed and proclaimed.
Um, are you aware of the central findings of the 11-year Acts Seminar?
These are the principle findings:
1. The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
2. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
4. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
5. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
6. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
7. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
8. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
9. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.
So, clearly, your above statement is wildly inaccurate.
Two things:
1. The Acts Seminar plays off the Jesus Seminar, and the Jesus seminar was a joke.
2. I guarantee you that most NT scholars do NOT agree with the findings of the Acts Seminar. Paul’s letters were written in the 50s-60s, the Synoptics were written in the 70s-80s, John’s stuff in the 90s. Most, if not all, NT material was written in the first century. Therefore, my argument stands. What you read in the NT reflects what the early first century Christians believed and proclaimed.
Most?
LOL!
Yes, absolutely. Not even a question.
OK Jan.
Carry on.
LOL