To briefly address some of these issues, I will admit from the outset that there has long been a tension concerning the proper relationship between faith and reason. Certain thinkers have contended that God or his dealings with humanity are not amenable to reason. There is also the famous axiom in theology that God may be apprehended, but he cannot be comprehended. And even a rigorous theologian like Duns Scotus ultimately argues that when reason leads us to a place where faith does not, we should let faith take precedence over reason.
However, it cannot be the case that God utterly transcends reason. This suggestion is nonsensical and patently false in the light of church history and Scripture. For example, Tertullian writes:
Reason, in fact, is a thing [property] of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason-nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason (De Paen 1).
The Latin text reads:
Ceterum a ratione eius tantum absunt quantum ab ipso rationis auctore. Quippe res dei ratio quia deus omnium conditor nihil non ratione providit disposuit ordinavit nihilque non ratione tractari intellegique voluit.
And Origen of Alexandria (in opposition to Celsus) maintains that humans are able to comprehend or describe God in the sense that familiarity with divine attributes may conceivably guide one who heeds God's truth toward a partial knowledge and understanding of the deity:
But if you take the phrase to mean that it is possible to represent by words something of God's attributes, in order to lead the hearer by the hand, as it were, and so enable him to comprehend something of God, so far as attainable by human nature, then there is no absurdity in saying that 'He can be described by name.'
See Contra Celsum 6.65ff.
Origen affirms that there is a sense in which rational creatures are able to describe or comprehend God. Such comprehension is not exhaustive but relative (i.e. to a degree). Therefore, the often heard maxim "God may be apprehended, but not comprehended" probably needs to be qualified. Origen indicates that rational creatures are able to describe or comprehend God—to an extent.
Finally, from the ecclesiastical history perspective, it seems that Richard of St. Victor (a Medieval theologian) makes a critical distinction between a doctrine being "above reason" and a doctrine being "beyond reason." He seems to apply both distinctions to the Trinity doctrine, even implying that the doctrine of God's triunity seems contrary to reason. However, Richard of St. Victor qualifies his remarks by writing that "almost all the things that we are commanded to believe about the Trinity of persons" are above or seem contrary to reason. The qualifier "almost" is not without importance since Richard himself posits a natural proof for God's triunity on the basis of love, a rational demonstration which resembles Augustine's attempt to show the reasonableness of the Trinity doctrine. But Richard's rational proof continued to be tethered to the Church. That is, it probably cannot be sustained rationally apart from that Trinitarian legacy which has been handed down by various and sundry ecclesiastics. See http://books.google.com/books?id=9d-IA72wfyYC&pg=PA262&dq=trinity+beyond+reason#PPA262,M1
The point of the preceding data has been to show that it is untenable to hold that God in se completely transcends reason. And I believe that this point is not only sustained by examining church history, but Scripture also indicates that God does not utterly transcend reason. See 1 John 5:20. For comments on the potential meaning of dianoia in 1 John 5:20, see http://books.google.com/books?id=2Zd4nTorV9QC&pg=PA560&dq=1+john+5:20+and+dianoia&lr=#PPA560,M1
In closing this blog entry, I leave my readers with a thought from John Locke:
Nothing that is contrary to, and inconsistent with, the clear and self-evident dictates of reason, has a right to be urged or assented to as a matter of faith.
"But the wisdom from above is...reasonable." (Jas. 3:17, NASB, ect.)
ReplyDeleteLikewise, any truly divine teaching should be open to reason. If the doctrine of the Trinity is irrational, its divine origin is called into question.
I appreciate you bringing James 3:17 into the discussion. That is an excellent point. Here is something I also researched some time ago:
ReplyDeleteThe NWT translates EPIEIKHS in James 3:17 as "reasonable." The RSV has "gentle."
(1) But Ralph Earle writes:
"This is not the usual word for 'gentle.' It is EPIEIKHS. J.B. Mayor says that Thucydides used it of men 'who would listen to reason' (p. 131). So it may be translated 'reasonable,' or 'considerate' (NIV)."
See Word Meanings in the NT, page 434-435.
(2) Moreover, we read:
"EPIEIKHS . . . not insisting on every right of letter
of law or custom, yielding, gentle, kind, courteous,
tolerant . . ." (BDAG, page 371).
(3) From Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the
New Testament (page 169):
"EPIEIKHS, ES . . . 1. seemly, fitting (Hom.). 2. equitable, fair, moderate: 1 Ti 3:3, Tit 3:2, 1 Pe 2:18, Ja 3:17; TO E. (Thuc., 1.76), Phil 4:5 (cf. Mayor, Ja, 1.c, and v.s. EPIEIKIA).
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the thoughts from Memra. I don't see any need for God to be unreasonable in explain himself. When he stated that we cannot see his face, he reasonably said " and live ". Humans were not designed by him to look at him,it is not unreasonable for him to tell us that.
Really it is the unreasonableness of men that make it so that we continually have to put up with the doctrine of the trinity.
Philip
The argument suggests that God cannot utterly transcend reason, quoting theologians like Origen and Tertullian to demonstrate that God's nature is accessible to human understanding. While it is true that God has revealed Himself in ways that are amenable to human comprehension (e.g., through Scripture, natural theology, and reason), this does not mean that God’s essence is entirely graspable by human intellect. Christianity holds that God, being infinite and transcendent, is beyond full human comprehension. The doctrine of the Trinity does not imply that God is irrational, but rather that God’s essence transcends the limitations of human reasoning.
ReplyDeleteIsaiah 55:8-9 emphasizes this when God says, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways...as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Theologians like Thomas Aquinas also affirm that while certain truths about God can be known by reason (such as His existence or attributes like goodness and wisdom), others—like the Trinity—are mysteries that surpass reason. They are not against reason, but beyond its full capacity.
Faith, by its nature, deals with revealed truths that human reason could not have discovered on its own. The Trinity is a revealed doctrine, one that humans could not deduce purely by philosophical or scientific inquiry. That doesn’t make it irrational or contrary to reason, but it places it in the realm of supernatural revelation.
1 Corinthians 2:10-11 teaches that "the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." This indicates that divine truths, especially those of the inner life of God (like the Trinity), are accessible only by revelation, not by human reasoning alone.
The argument from Richard of St. Victor acknowledges that while the Trinity may seem "above" or "beyond" reason, this does not mean that it contradicts reason. Instead, it suggests that the limitations of human reasoning must be acknowledged when grappling with the infinite nature of God. The Trinity, though mysterious, can be understood as consistent with the divine nature when viewed in the light of revealed truths.
St. Augustine, in his work On the Trinity, attempts to demonstrate the reasonableness of the doctrine by using analogies, such as the mind's faculties of memory, understanding, and will. He does this not to fully explain the mystery of the Trinity but to show that the concept of one nature in three persons is not inherently illogical or contradictory.
The argument refers to Tertullian and Origen to suggest that reason plays a central role in comprehending God. Yet, both of these early theologians also stressed that human reason has its limits when it comes to the mysteries of God. Tertullian is famous for saying, "I believe because it is absurd," not to deny reason, but to emphasize that faith in God's revelation often transcends what we can fully grasp.
Origen similarly distinguished between the aspects of God that can be understood by human intellect and those that must be accepted through faith. He acknowledged that human language and thought can only partially capture the divine reality, particularly when it comes to the inner workings of the Trinity.
The crux of the argument seems to confuse "transrational" with "irrational." A transrational doctrine is one that exceeds the capacity of human reason without contradicting it. The Trinity, as taught in Christian doctrine, is a mystery that exceeds human understanding but does not violate the laws of logic or reason. It is not something illogical or self-contradictory; rather, it is something that human minds cannot fully comprehend due to the infinite nature of God.
The argument ends with a quote from John Locke, asserting that nothing contrary to reason should be accepted on faith. While Locke's view emphasizes the role of reason in faith, Christian orthodoxy holds that reason has its limits, particularly in matters of divine revelation. While faith should not contradict reason, it often surpasses it. Locke’s approach would be too limiting for understanding doctrines that, while not fully explainable by reason, are revealed truths accepted through faith.
ReplyDeleteWhile human reason plays a crucial role in theology, it cannot be the sole arbiter of divine truths, especially when it comes to the mysteries of God. The Trinity, while not fully comprehensible by human reason, is a doctrine grounded in revelation and consistent with the overall testimony of Scripture and tradition. The fact that it transcends reason does not make it irrational or false; it simply reflects the infinite nature of God, which exceeds the grasp of finite human minds.
The argument presented here attempts to use James 3:17, which describes divine wisdom as "reasonable" (or gentle, depending on the translation), to argue that any doctrine that appears irrational, including the Trinity, must be dismissed as not truly divine. However, this reasoning overlooks key theological concepts and misunderstands the relationship between divine revelation and human reason. The argument hinges on the word epieikes, which the NWT translates as "reasonable" in James 3:17. However, as noted in the cited references, epieikes has a broader range of meanings, including "gentle," "equitable," "tolerant," or "moderate." It does not necessarily mean "rational" in the sense of fully graspable by human reason. James 3:17 does not imply that every divine teaching must be fully comprehensible or "reasonable" in the sense of being easily understood by human reason. Instead, it describes a disposition of fairness, gentleness, and humility—qualities that reflect the wisdom of God.
The argument asserts that if the Trinity cannot be fully explained by reason, it must be unreasonable and thus false. However, this reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of faith and reason within Christian theology. The relationship between faith and reason is not antagonistic but complementary.
Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us that divine truths often transcend human understanding. Just because we cannot fully explain the Trinity with human logic does not make it irrational. The Trinity, like other divine mysteries (e.g., the Incarnation, the resurrection), transcends reason but does not contradict it. It is a mystery that is above reason but not against it.
The Trinity is often described as a "mystery" because it reflects the inner life of God, which surpasses human comprehension. Yet, it is not "irrational." It is based on divine revelation, and its formulation (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one in essence and three in person) is not a logical contradiction. While humans may struggle to fully grasp the nature of the Trinity, this does not make the doctrine unreasonable or illogical.
St. Augustine addressed this issue when he said, "If you can comprehend it, it is not God." God's essence, including His triune nature, surpasses the limits of human intellect. We accept the mystery of the Trinity through faith, grounded in divine revelation, not because it is against reason, but because it is beyond the full reach of reason.
ReplyDeleteThe passage from James 3:17 speaks of wisdom that is "pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits." It is speaking of the ethical and spiritual attributes of divine wisdom, not the nature of God’s self-revelation. Using this verse to argue that every divine doctrine must be fully explainable by human reason is a misapplication of the text.
The fact that humans cannot fully grasp the Trinity does not make God "unreasonable." God’s self-revelation—such as His command that we cannot see His face and live (Exodus 33:20)—acknowledges our human limitations, not the unreasonableness of His nature. Similarly, the doctrine of the Trinity acknowledges that the inner life of God is beyond human comprehension but is revealed for our salvation.
Christian theology asserts that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a product of human reason but of divine revelation. It is revealed through Scripture (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, 2 Corinthians 13:14). While it cannot be fully understood by human logic, it does not contradict reason.
Tertullian, one of the early Church Fathers, famously defended the mystery of faith by stating: "I believe because it is absurd." His point was not to suggest that faith is irrational, but that divine truths transcend human reasoning. We accept these mysteries not because they make sense in purely human terms, but because God, who is beyond our understanding, has revealed them.
The demand that all divine truths must be fully understandable by human logic is flawed. As finite beings, we cannot expect to fully comprehend the infinite. Just as children may not fully understand complex adult decisions, we as limited creatures cannot expect to understand the fullness of God’s nature. Deuteronomy 29:29 says, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever."
James 3:17 does not support the claim that the Trinity is unreasonable. Divine wisdom can be "reasonable" in the sense of being accessible and open to us, but that does not mean that all aspects of God’s nature must be fully comprehensible by human reason. The doctrine of the Trinity is a revealed mystery that transcends human logic, but it is not irrational or contradictory. Rather, it calls us to humble faith in what God has revealed about His nature, even when it surpasses our intellectual grasp.
Logical Problem of the Trinity by Richard Cartwright:
ReplyDelete(S1) The Father is God.
(S2) The Son is God.
(S3) The Holy Spirit is God.
(S4) The Father is not the Son.
(S5) The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
(S6) The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
(S7) There is exactly one God.
@Edgar Foster
DeleteThe "Logical Problem of the Trinity" formulated by Richard Cartwright, summarized by statements (S1) through (S7), is essentially a presentation of the APPARENT contradiction or paradox in Trinitarian theology. Let's break down the challenge and offer a detailed refutation or explanation of how orthodox Christian theology reconciles these statements without contradiction.
The key to understanding the doctrine of the Trinity lies in distinguishing between the essence of God and the persons within the Trinity. This distinction is crucial in resolving what seems like a logical contradiction.
* Essence (or "ousia") refers to what God is—one undivided being or substance.
* Persons (or "hypostases") refer to the distinct identities or relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the one Godhead.
Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine teaches that God is one in essence and three in person. These persons are not distinct gods but distinct subsistences or modes of relation within the one God.
So, while (S1) to (S3) assert that each person (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is God, they refer to the same divine essence, not three separate gods. On the other hand, (S4) to (S6) affirm that the persons are distinct, which refers to their relations within the Trinity, not to separate beings.
This distinction resolves the tension between the oneness of God (S7) and the threeness of persons without implying that the doctrine is logically contradictory.
Let’s address each statement in the context of Trinitarian theology:
* (S1) The Father is God.
* (S2) The Son is God.
* (S3) The Holy Spirit is God.
These statements are understood to mean that each person of the Trinity fully shares in the one divine essence. There is one divine nature, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all possess this same nature fully.
* (S4) The Father is not the Son.
* (S5) The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
* (S6) The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
These statements are not about the essence of God but the distinct personhood within the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons in relation to one another but not separate beings. They are distinguished by their relations of origin: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and in Western theology, from the Father and the Son).
* (S7) There is exactly one God.
DeleteThis is the bedrock of Christian monotheism—there is one divine being or essence (ousia). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in substance and nature, meaning that they are not three gods but one God in three persons. The unity of God’s essence ensures that the Trinity does not violate the principle of monotheism.
The logical problem arises when we attempt to apply human logic too simplistically to the mystery of God’s nature. The Trinity is neither tritheism (three gods) nor modalism (one God acting in three different modes).
* Tritheism would be the belief in three separate gods, which orthodox Christianity rejects because it would violate the clear biblical teaching of one God (Deuteronomy 6:4).
* Modalism would deny the personal distinctions within the Godhead, collapsing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into one person acting in three different roles, which is also rejected.
The doctrine of the Trinity teaches one essence shared fully by three distinct persons. This avoids both errors.
The biblical foundation for the Trinity is found in the consistent witness of Scripture, where:
* God is revealed as one (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5).
* The Father is called God (John 6:27, 1 Corinthians 8:6).
* The Son is called God (John 1:1, Titus 2:13, Colossians 2:9).
* The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4, 2 Corinthians 3:17).
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—demonstrating the three persons in one name (the singular "name" reflects unity).
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct in terms of their relations to one another but not in terms of their essence. This relational distinction is what allows us to say, for example, that:
* The Father is unbegotten and is the source of the Son and the Spirit.
* The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
* The Spirit is the one who proceeds from the Father (and in Western theology, from the Father and the Son).
These personal relations do not imply a difference in nature or divinity but describe the internal life of God.
The "Logical Problem of the Trinity" as presented in this formulation is based on a misunderstanding of the distinction between essence and persons within the Trinity. The one God exists as three persons who fully share the same divine essence. These persons are distinct in their relations but not in their divinity. Therefore, there is no contradiction between affirming that:
* The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God.
* The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
* There is only one God.
While the Trinity is a profound mystery that stretches human understanding, it does not violate logic when properly understood in terms of essence and personhood.
For the record, Nincsnevem, I'm pretty sure that Cartwright does not misunderstand the difference between one divine substance and three distinct persons. If you read his work, I think that point will become evident. His problem is more about how one reconciles those disparate claims, and he is not the first or only thinker to question the coherence of the Trinity doctrine.
ReplyDeleteI don't think one solves the problem by invoking the distinctions or the essence: both need to be explained and reconciled with one another.
Essentially, the concern is that the distinctions (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) might seem logically irreconcilable with the assertion of one God (one essence). However, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity carefully explains how essence and personhood work together without contradiction. The Trinity avoids contradiction by affirming one essence and three persons. This does not create a logical problem because the distinctions pertain to personhood (relation) and not essence (being). Each person of the Trinity fully shares the same divine essence without division or separation. They are distinct in relation (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) but not separate beings.
DeleteThe distinctions within the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are relational, not ontological. This is key to understanding how the distinctions can be reconciled with the unity of the one divine essence:
1. The Father is unbegotten—He is the source of the Son and the Spirit.
2. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
3. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and, in Western theology, also from the Son).
These distinctions do not divide the divine essence. They describe how the persons of the Trinity relate to one another, not their nature or being. Each person possesses the same nature fully and simultaneously. This relational understanding is rooted in the biblical revelation of how God interacts with humanity and how Scripture presents the relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit (e.g., John 14:26, John 15:26).
A common misunderstanding is thinking of the Trinity in physical or material terms, as though God could be divided into parts. But the Trinity does not divide God’s essence into three parts; rather, the three persons share the one undivided essence.
Consider an analogy, while imperfect, that helps illustrate the point: A triangle has three distinct sides, yet it is one shape. The sides are distinct but not separate—removing a side would no longer make it a triangle. In the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but each fully shares in the one undivided divine essence.
The unity of essence and distinction of persons is not a contradiction because the categories of essence and person are not the same kind of distinction. The essence refers to the substance or nature of God, and personhood refers to the relations within that essence. This is how the Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Augustine, reconciled the unity and distinctions within the Trinity.
The doctrine of divine simplicity teaches that God is not made up of parts; His essence is unified. When we say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct, we are speaking about their relationships within the divine nature, not separate substances. Divine simplicity maintains that God is one being with no division in His essence, which allows for the oneness of God in Trinity.
The Greek theological term PERICHORESIS helps explain how the three persons can be distinct while sharing the same essence. It refers to the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interpenetrate and indwell one another without blending or merging into one. They are perfectly united in their essence, actions, and will, and yet they remain distinct in person. This mutual indwelling means the persons of the Trinity are distinct but inseparable.
The doctrine of the Trinity may transcend human understanding but it does not violate logic. The concepts of essence and personhood are distinct categories that help to explain the unity and diversity within God. While mystery remains in the Trinity, as it involves the infinite nature of God, it does not follow that it is irrational or logically incoherent.
The divine essence is what the three persons share equally and fully. It is one and indivisible. All three persons possess all the attributes of divinity: omnipotence, omniscience, eternality, etc. There is no division in God’s being, no “splitting” of divine power or knowledge among the persons.
DeleteThe distinctiveness of the persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) comes from their relations of origin. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and in Western theology, from the Father and the Son). These relational distinctions are internal to the Godhead and do not imply a difference in substance or nature.
The logical coherence of the Trinity depends on understanding how unity of essence and distinction of persons operate on different levels. We are not saying that God is both one and three in the same way. Instead, God is one in essence and three in persons. These are not contradictory statements because they refer to different aspects of God’s being.
The essence of God refers to what God is (one single divine nature), while the persons refer to who God is (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each fully possessing the divine essence). The apparent contradiction only arises if we confuse these categories or assume that being one in essence necessarily excludes being three in persons. But in the case of the Trinity, the three persons do not divide the one essence; they each subsist fully in it.
The doctrine of the Trinity involves complex theological concepts, but it is not inherently incoherent or illogical. The distinctions between essence and persons provide a framework for understanding how God is one in being but three in persons. This avoids logical contradictions and aligns with the consistent teaching of Scripture and the early Church Fathers.
The challenge is not in proving the Trinity by human logic alone, but in accepting that God’s nature is revealed in Scripture in a way that goes beyond our full comprehension while remaining coherent and non-contradictory when carefully examined.