"There is a twofold mode of truth in what we profess about God. Some truths about God exceed all the ability of the human reason. Such is the truth that God is triune. But there are some truths which the natural reason also is able to reach. Such are that God exists, that He is one, and the like. In fact, such truths about God have been proved demonstratively by the philosophers, guided by the light of the natural reason" (Summa Contra Gentiles 1.3).
"Est autem in his quae de Deo confitemur duplex veritatis modus. Quaedam namque vera sunt de Deo quae omnem facultatem humanae rationis excedunt, ut Deum esse trinum et unum. Quaedam vero sunt ad quae etiam ratio naturalis pertingere potest, sicut est Deum esse, Deum esse unum, et alia huiusmodi; quae etiam philosophi demonstrative de Deo probaverunt, ducti naturalis lumine rationis."
Translation by Anton C. Pegis.
The translator missed a word in the phrase: ut Deum esse trinum et unum
ReplyDeleteHe only put: "that God is triune", whereas, the Latin is: "such as that God is three [Or: "consists of three" "triple"] and one."
"Triune" or: "Triunity" is anachronistic in this context. "Triune" is a word that was first used in English, early in the 17th century.
The translator also put: "He is one" instead of: Deum esse unum "God is one".
I'm being pedantic.
"Now there is a twofold mode of truth in the things that we confess about [Or: "concerning"] God. For some things that are true about God exceed all the ability of human reason, such as, that God is three [Or: "consists of three" "triple"] and one. Now there are other things to which natural reason can attain, even, such as that God exists, God is one, and suchlike, which is also proved to be demonstrated by the philosophers in things concerning God, who were guided by the natural light of reason."
Your comments are well taken, Weedhacker. Thank you. I agree that the translator made some errors in the rendering. It can happen, but I was surprised at some of the mistakes he made.
ReplyDeleteHe renders trinum as "triune," and you translate the word as "three" or triple (which is better IMO). Trinum (in this context) is accusative neuter singular of trinus. As a literal translation, "triune" would seem to be wanting and anachronistic, like you point out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSean,
ReplyDeleteAll Trinitarians (pretty much) identify Jesus as God, including WLC. But what they mean is that he's the second person of the Trinity--he is just as much God as his Father and the Holy Spirit are.
A common approach to refuting the law of noncontradiction doesn't apply to the Trinity is WLC's argument. I've posted material here about CF Henry that replies to the argument too.
The bottom line is that one, who denies the applicability of reason to the triune deity, has the burden of proof on him/her. Secondly, when someone denies that reason applies to the three persons, he/she normally uses reason when making that denial. So the denial is self-refuting.
I have another paper somewhere on my computer that offers another perspective. I will try to find it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe language "each Person is fully divine" means that each Person is truly God: is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Each Person is also ontologically identical to the other Person, but not hypostatically identical. Furthermore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are identical to the Godhead (i.e., each is the ens realissimum and a se esse, and so forth). That means, according to the Trinity, that each Person is fully Jehovah (YHWH) since He is the only true God. However, Trinitarians would then usually distinguish between Jehovah the Father, Jehovah the Son, and Jehovah the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteI would have to check, but I don't see why Craig would have difficulty identifying Jesus as Jehocvah or YHWH. He might not agree with the pronunciation; however, I'm almost certain he would say that Jesus is YHWH incarnate or YHWH the Son.
Yes, IMO, Trinitarians do equivocate when using "God." See Murray Harris' "Jesus As God" for a good Trinitarian explanation of how "God" is understood by them.
Sean, please see the links below:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/trinity-wayne-grudem
https://books.google.com/books?id=_lFHAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=jesus+is+jehovah&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX0qy76cPKAhUESCYKHSe2AzcQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=jesus%20&f=false
Sean,
ReplyDeletehere's a paper I had in mind by Dr. Pratt that deals with the law of noncontradiction. See http://www.theopedia.com/law-of-noncontradiction
Best regards!