True piety, when directed to an undivided Deity, has a chasteness, a singleness, most favorable to religious awe and love. Now, the Trinity sets before us three distinct objects of supreme adoration; three infinite persons, having equal claims on our hearts; three divine agents, performing different offices, and to be acknowledged and worshipped in different relations. And is it possible, we ask, that the weak and limited mind of man can attach itself to these with the same power and joy, as to One Infinite Father, the only First Cause, in whom all the blessings of nature and redemption meet as their centre and source? Must not devotion be distracted by the equal and rival claims of three equal persons, and must not the worship of the conscientious, consistent Christian, be disturbed by an apprehension, lest he withhold from one or another of these, his due proportion of homage?
Again this is not THE proof against trinitarian thought, but it is clearly a sober assessment of this part of the subject.
BTW, I’ve contacted the moderators and welcomed them to reign in my ‘fixation’ on this subject if they feel I’m running wild.
I can get carried away; and I don’t want to do anything if it is not edifying to the Body of Christ.
Let me know if this is causing waves - Christian unity in love is more important than anything else.
Paidion, within reason, we are all free to use whichever language we wish to describe God. If the term ‘God the Son’ is offensive to you, then don’t use it. That is the point of my previous post; we have a freedom to use certain language (or not use certain language) as our understanding permits. We don’t need to reel in the polar extreme and forbid the usage of certain terms.
The use (or disuse) of the definite article, “the”, before God does not prove or disprove the identity of God. This idea, that the absence of the definite article made the reference to a lessor god, was first introduced by E.W. Bullinger and Bishop Middleton. This idea is shown to be false in scripture in Luke 1:35 where “Holy Spirit” and “Most High” are both without the definite article. In Matthew 3:16 - the Holy Spirit is referred to without a definite article, and in Luke 3:22 - with a definite article. Again, in John 7:39 the Holy Spirit is referred to with the definite article, and in Acts 1:5 the Holy Spirit is referred to without the definite article. Also in John 14:26 the Holy Spirit is referred to with the definite article.
Professor Gordon Fee explains why there is a distinction of the usage of the definite article:
Colored emphasis added…
This ‘definite article’ theory was not used by the early church fathers to distinguish between persons of the Godhead, and it should also be rejected today. It is sit on very shaky ground, and it is contradicted by scripture itself.
Again, this is a very unstable argument. The trinity is a word which describes the unique relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are many different models of the trinity that can be used, even the one that you use, Paidion, which rejects the Holy Spirit. I personally had problems with the term because of its association with gnosticism, as the 2nd century gnostic (and bishop), Valentinus, had proposed a model of the trinity which was eventually adopted by the bishops of Rome, and it is very close to the Nicene model of the trinity that the entire churches have now succumbed to, as confessed by Marcellus of Ancyra:
It was Valentinus who opened the can of worms and poisoned the trinity well. 2nd and 3rd century Roman bishops, Zephyrinus and Callistus, had first entertained the gnostic trinity; but that alone does not disqualify the usage of the term. There is no need to throw the baby out with the dirty bath water. The term can be used to describe the Godhead as I understand it, as well as it can be used to describe the Godhead as you understand it. The problem lies in the word association, not in the word itself.
Another non-biblical word that is frequently used by christians is incarnation. The fact that the word is not found in scripture does not negate the usage of the term.
Certainly we’re free to do that. No one is preventing us from using “Turnip” or any other word.
I’m not offended. I simply think it does not correctly describe the Son of God.
To the best of my knowledge, no one is forbidding the usage of ANY term.
Of course not, but it clearly denotes the Father, only true God, whereas the concept of Trinity seems to be a mere man-made invention which we find nowhere in scripture (I am not referring to the word “Trinity”, but to the concept).
I don’t think those two men invented the idea. Clearly in some cases the absence of the article DOES refer to a lesser god (Acts 12:22, 26:6).
In other cases the word “theos” without the article or any other modifier refers to the QUALITY of being divine, such as the second occurence in
John 1:1 (Note: there is not a “definite” and “indefinite” article in Greek as there is in English. There is just an article.)
This doesn’t prove anything about it, since “the idea” doesn’t apply to words other than “theos”. However, having said this, let me affirm that I do not believe that “theos” without the article necessarily refers to a lesser god. The second occurence of “theos” in John 1:1 refers to the Logos, the Son of God, and He is no less divine than the Father. Nevertheless, He is secondary in POSITION. He always obeyed the Father both here on earth and in His pre-incarnate state. And in the end when everything comes under His dominion, He will turn the kingdom over to the Father that God (the Father) may be all in all! (I Cor. 15).
It still stands that when “theos” is used WITH the article (and no other modifier) it ALWAYS refers to the Father alone. He is “the God.” Jesus is divine. He may be called “God” in the generic sense, but He is not “the God”. In His prayer to the Father, Jesus addressed Him as “the only true God.” (John 17:3)
I have to admit that I find the work of analytic philosophers on the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation virtually useless and perhaps even dangerous. Dangerous because it treats Trinity and Incarnation as logical problems to be “solved,” I find this approach utterly foreign to the Church Fathers who sought to articulate the two doctrines. In my judgment the trinitarian and christological dogmas. as defined by the ecumenical councils, set forth a grammar for Christian discourse and doxology. The Fathers knew full well that the dogmas involved paradox and antinomy, but they were convinced that the data of revelation required this.
“they were convinced that the data of revelation required this.”
I’m not at all certain about that, but I am certain that analytic philosophers, striving for conceptual clarity, can be a very helpful part of the discussion. You do not find them helpful, and that’s fine. I do, I respect their work, and they are trying to solve a problem. So were the Fathers, and they used every analytic tool they could and might have welcomed even more.
It’s not like the problem has been ‘solved’, after all, whether you consider it analytic or not…
There is certainly a very open question as to whether revelation requires this.
The trinity says God is one in essence and three in persons. The problem people have in trying to understand it is that they are using the rational mind of either/or thinking. Paradoxes are not either/or. This is where you have to go beyond the dualistic mind into the both/and. Reality is full of paradoxes. People are a mixture of both good and bad, living and dying. We are a mixed blessing. Paradox is hidden and obvious, everywhere and always - unless you have repressed one side of your very being. There’s no need to try to understand the trinity with the rational mind. It’s a mysterious paradox.
Have I stirred up a controversy here by a simple appreciation of the hard work of analytic philosophy?
Steve if you totally agree with Akimel’s post, I am surprised - not at the ECF recognizing a paradox, even I, a non-expert, recognize that.
But at the unnecessary and unfounded dismissal of other philosophers - that does not ring true.
You both are incorrect in that dismissal and you need to study further.
As to the ECF - I have an appreciation for them - but I do understand and appreciate the work of those trying to elucidate the paradox more completely.
I am not or ever will be a second century Christian - the fights of today must be waged by well-intentioned and God-gifted philosophers as well, learning from all those giants whose shoulders they stand on.
Hi Dave, I don’t think I was dismissing other philosophers generally, but I do so in relation to understanding the trinity, and I think akimel summarized the problem succinctly when he said:
I have personally found much of modern theology to be closer to philosophy than they are to biblical theologians. It is only my opinion, but I think that the modern theologian struggles with faith in the biblical account, and they seek assistance from secular philosophy to accommodate their own lack of spiritual clarity. It is often easier to get a consensus among secular philosophers than it is to understand biblical revelation. From my observation, as the church had fallen into greater secular compromise, they have done so with equal and opposite loss of spiritual comprehension. This was seen particularly from the 4th century onwards, where many church doctrines became entwined with secular reasoning. Even today, you can become a minister or church leader in exactly the same manner in which one becomes a science teacher, or an electrician. The boundaries of the sacred and secular have become blurred, and there are none more confused than the modern philosopher/theologian. I think they have lost the teaching of the early church almost completely. Only a small resemblance remains. Just my opinion.
Philosophy as it is understood today simply means “thinking about…” or “reasoning about…” For example “philosophy of mathematics”=“reasoning about mathematic”. “Philosophy of religion”=“Reasoning about religion”. Isn’t that what we are all doing in this forum? It is such reasoning that GIVES us spiritual clarity.
I have always found it almost unbelievable that so many people can hold to a self-contradictory concept and justify it in their own minds by relegating it to the realm of the “mysterious” or “paradoxical”.
The basic meaning of paradox is “a self-contractory statement”. When one fully understands the situation the paradoxical statement must be denied. That which is truly self-contradictory can never be explained. For example “This book cover is both black and not black” is self-contractory and therefore false. However, “I am both hungry and not hungry” may appear self-contradictory but may really mean, “I want to eat some things but not others.”
A simple example of a paradox is the Sentence paradox: “This sentence is false.” For if the sentence is true, then it is false. If it is false, then it is true. If “logical statement” refers to a sentence which is either true or false, the sentence is not a logical statement at all. For it is neither true nor false. When one understands that, the sentence loses its “mystery” as a supposed statement.
Let’s consider the Barber’s Paradox. In a particular town a barber shaves all men and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does the barber shave himself? If the answer is “yes” then he must not shave himself. For he shaves ONLY those men who do not shave themselves. So the answer must be “no”. But in that case, he must shave himself. For he shaves ALL men who do not shave themselves. So what do we do with this paradox? Do we have to say we “cannot understand it with the rational mind”? Do we classify this paradox a deep mystery along with the mystery of the Trinity? No. We need to realize that such a barber cannot exist.
It was once thought that any set at all could be represented mathematically. For example, the set of positive intergers is represented as {1,2,3,…}. Even the set of pink elephants now in this room can be represented as { }. In other words the empty set. But then Bertrand Russell came up with a description of a set which could not be represented: “The set of all sets and only those sets which are not members of themselves.” Let’s assign S as the name of that set.Then we ask “Is S a member of itself?” If the answer is “yes”, then S is NOT a member of itself. For S is the set of only those sets which are NOT members of themselves. If the answer is “no” then S is a member of itself. For S is the set of all sets which are NOT members of themselves. How could such a set be represented mathematically? The answer is that such a set cannot exist, and for that reason cannot be represented mathematically.
So we found:
In the Sentence Paradox, no such logical statement exists.
In the Barber Paradox, no such barber exists.
In Russel’s Paradox, no such set exists.
And in my opinion:
4. In the Trinitarian paradox, no such entity exists.
Now of course, one can be in such a psychological condition that he wants to affirm these paradoxes.
In the Sentence Paradox, the sentence actually IS a logical statement. It is true and yet it is false. A great mystery!
In the Barber Paradox, there CAN be such a barber. Somehow it is true that he both shaves himself and does not shave himself. A great mystery!
In Russel’s Paradox, there IS such a set. It is a member of itself and yet it isn’t a member of itself. A great mystery!
In the Trinitarian paradox, there IS such an entity as the Trinity. He is one, and yet He is three. A great mystery!
Dave, I am not dismissing the work of analytic philosophers; but I have read enough of their work on both the Trinity and Incarnation to be convinced that much of this work is simply unhelpful to Christian theology, which is probably why it is mainly ignored outside philosophical circles. All one has to do is to read Swinburne’s book The Christian God. I read it when it was first published, and all I could do is throw up my hands in frustration. The curious thing is that Swinburne’s theological work is completely out of touch with the theology of his own Church (i.e., the Eastern Orthodox Church).
Conceptual clarity is fine, but the fourth century Church Fathers were not driven by the need for conceptual clarity. Aetius and Eunomius and their followers certainly were, and the Cappadocians responded to their “logic-chopping” by emphatically reasserting the incomprehensibility of God. For two good examples, read St Gregory Nazianzus’s Theological Orations and St Basil’s Contra Eunomium. They did not view the trinitarian doctrine as solving a conundrum but as stating the Mystery. They reacted so strongly against Eunomius because they saw him as rationalistically truncating the revelation of Christ as given in Scripture and embodied in the trinitarian life of the Church. The Eunomians were the analytic philosophers of their day. They strove for conceptual clarity, and on the basis of that clarity and precision they thought they had achieved, they rejected the trinitarian formulations and affirmed a unitarian deity with two creaturely subordinates, Son and Spirit.
I am beginning to suspect that the principal reason that the Christian analytic philosophers are so unhelpful here is somehow connected to their commitment to the category of “person” as the best way to think about God (see “How Anthropomorphic is Your G-O-D?”). As a result, God’s truly radical difference from creation gets lost somewhere. The trinitarian God becomes “three selves,” and so we are all left wondering how it is possible for three selves to be one God and not three gods. Similarly, the Incarnation becomes an impossible problem because we cannot figure out how to unite the divine psychological apparatus with the human psychological apparatus. But these are pseudo-problems created by the failure to understand God’s radical difference from the world. It is precisely the radical difference between uncreated nature and created nature that allows him to assume human nature without in any way compromising human nature. Etc.
The only way forward is to return to the beginning and think over again what it means for God to be the Creator who has made the world from out of nothing.
Akimel - thank you for your clarification of the problems and the difficulties in this. You made some excellent points.
In general, I support this non-technical view of supposed ‘paradoxes’ in revelation:
“We answer again, that, if God be infinitely wise, he cannot sport with the understandings of his creatures. A wise teacher discovers his wisdom in adapting himself to the capacities of his pupils, not in perplexing them with what is unintelligible, not in distressing them with apparent contradictions, not in filling them with a skeptical distrust of their own powers. An infinitely wise teacher, who knows the precise extent of our minds, and the best method of enlightening them, will surpass all other instructors in bringing down truth to our apprehension, and in showing its loveliness and harmony.
It is not the mark of wisdom, to use an unintelligible phraseology, to communicate what is above our capacities, to confuse and unsettle the intellect by appearances of contradiction. We honor our Heavenly Teacher too much to ascribe to him such a revelation. A revelation is a gift of light. It cannot thicken our darkness, and multiply our perplexities.”
That quote is from Wm. Ellery Channing who was of course a Unitarian, but not necessarily therefore wrong.
If God cannot make something clear to us, perhaps it is not something that we are going to accomplish on our own?
