Generally speaking, the claims of the Trinity doctrine are:
Version A.
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. There are three divine Persons.
5. Each divine Person is distinct from the other Persons.
6. There are not three gods, but only one God.
Another way to frame the Trinity doctrine is to say:
Version B.
1. God is YHWH (Jehovah) the Father.
2. God is YHWH (Jehovah) the Son.
3. God is YHWH (Jehovah) the Holy Spirit.
4. There are three divine Persons.
5. Each divine Person is distinct from the other Persons.
6. There are not three YHWHs (Jehovahs), but only one YHWH (Jehovah).
Are these claims contradictory? What do you think? Have I framed them correctly? Finally, does the Bible teach either one of these concepts (version A or version B)?
Anyone replying to this post needs to stick with the point of this thread or comments will not be accepted. Let's stick with the subject matter, please.
29 comments:
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/topics/trinityshield.html
This frames the totality of it.
I've heard trinitarian theologians provide models with challenge some of those things, while still claiming to be Nicene-Constantinopolitan. Karl Barth prefers "mode of being" rather than person, I also know of some monarchian trinitarians who would claim that only the Father is YHWH.
I think the post-Barthian (McCormack, Jenson) and the monarchian models could, however, agree to that formulation, but would probably want to qualify it.
I think it can be made to be not contradictory IF one equivocates the designation of YHWH, i.e. it can be a name of a divine being, but also refer to the "Godhead."
Ultimately however, I think the claim is metaphysically absurd, but that would take some working out. Basically, the cosmological arguments and the teleological arguments all point of a single first cause, or a single final cause, which is titled God and which the bible names Jehovah, if by "person" one means an agent, or will, then that first and final cause would have to be a single will (for reasons understood all the way back to Ireneaus), since no personal distinctions could be made within an infinite and perfect will.
The fact is the distinctions between the persons can only be made with reference to creation, and only one of them can be the actual first and final cause, which the bible says is the Father, who himself is Jehovah.
I have a paper coming out early next year touching on this issue.
Your example frames the absurdity of depending on human wisdom to understand the ontology of God. On day 1 of their lives Adam and Eve were not babies. All our logic and past experience would tell us they were.
Thus, it is better to go by what the Bible actually teaches.
Just to clarify, I think they can made to be logically without contradiction, but it would still be metaphysically absurd.
Duncan: Thanks, that's a helpful diagram.
Roman, just to address a few of your points. As you point out, there are different models of the Trinity as Robert Jenson and others have acknowledged. Barth preferred the "modes of being" language and so does Owen Thomas (a systematic theologian). We find this usage in the eastern fathers too, but it always has to be qualified and kept separate from "heretical" monarchianism" which Tertullian and Novatian militated against. Barth and Jenson are interesting, even if one takes issue with their formulations. I once talked with Jenson and found him to be reasonable, even somewhat humble. I think he's now deceased.
You make a good observation about defining "person." As you know theologians often say that God is analogously a person. Boethius and Aquinas wrote that a person is "an individual substance of a rational nature." Aquinas then more carefully defined what invidual, substance, rational, and nature mean in relation to God.
More food for thought:
Owen Thomas:
The result of the analysis of the biblical testimony in the light of the tradition of the church is that the distinctions Father, Son and Spirit do not refer to persons in the modern sense [i.e., as separate centers of consciousness] or parts of God; each refers to the whole of the Godhead. They do not refer to aspects, qualities, or attributes of God, because all of these apply equally to each of the "persons." They do not refer to functions or types of activity of God, because each of the "persons" is involved in each activity of God. They are not simply ways in which God is revealed or ways in which we experience God but rather essential or immanent distinctions in the godhead. The names Father, Son and Holy Spirit refer to modes of being of God, distinctions in the way in which God is God, distinctions in the form, pattern, order, or structure of all of God's activities.
Quote taken from Owen Thomas' work, Introduction to Theology. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1994. Page 71.
I like the point about metaphysical absurdity.
A person is not able to come anywhere remotely close to understanding how God always existed from eternity past so it would not be surprising if we cannot understand in the same way His ontology.
This is why it is important to adhere to what the Bible teaches (cf. Acts 17:11). That is the standard - not if we can partially or even somewhat fully comprehend Him apart from the Bible..
One big difference. The Bible teaches that God is eternal, but does not teach that he is triune.
Actually though, we should use the Bible, reason, and the study of grammar when trying to know God or understand his nature.
No difference at all. The Bible does teach God is eternal and that He is Triune.
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/SpiritFather.html
How does this fit within the triune structure?
FR, you also talk about sticking to the Bible. Show me one canonical verse that teaches God's triunity. Just one.
FR, metaphysical absurdity does not mean difficult to understand, it means the claim is metaphysically nonsense, another example would be a describing the color yellow as having a weight, which is absurd because abstract concepts do not have weight.
when you read the bible, or any other text, there is a principle of charity, i.e., that if you can read someone as saying something that has some sense to it or you can read someone as saying nonsense, you ought to read it the former way unless there is some strong reason to believe they are saying nonsense.
God existing eternally is not metaphysically abusrd, not at all, there is nothing absurd about that, can we comprehend it? No, but that does not make it absurd.
It is also clearly taught in scripture, the trinity isn't.
I would have loved to talk to Jenson, he seams brilliant and extremely creative, and very dedicated to scripture.
I have been unsatisfied with the classical (Boethius and Aquinas) view of a person (and other things), and I much prefer the approach taken by later German idealists, but that's for another time :).
What Owen Thomas is saying is more or less the Barthian model how I understand it (for me, it's filtered through McCormack, I've read a little bit of Barth myself, but not enough to really say I've read him). Now of all this is, in my estimation, both contradicted by the biblical testemony and metaphysical absurdity, and relies on obfuscation (does the Son reveal God? Absolutely, but if you want to translate that to ontological identity you run into all kinds of problems).
Jenson was brilliant and creative: I loved some of the things that he wrote about God and time and his systematic theology is worth a read.
I'm not exactly tied to the classical view of person. I would like to teach a course on personhood in the future, just to get my thoughts sorted out on the matter. There is a lot to process between the classical view, the German idealists, which I don't necessarily reject, and the Lockean/modern view of personhood. I try to define personhood by Scripture, but Nancey Murphy, Kevin Corcoran, Peter van Inwagen, Antonio Damasio, Joseph LeDoux, and Edmond Husserl all shape my theoretical view of personhood. Is this the time to plug my book about personhood? :-)
I've read some Barth, but prefer Emil Brunner instead. They were sparring partners; so if you read Brunner's Dogmatics, it gives you some idea of Barth's thinking. Karl Barth wrote the Church Dogmatics, which he never completely finished. I think they're 14 volumes.
It's funny that Barth thought of himself as going back to the biblical sources, but his view of biblical inspiration just spoils it for me. Check that out sometimes :)
Matthew 28:19
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): Mt. 28:19 combines the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost. Only through this link with the name of Son and Holy Ghost does the name of the Father acquire its fulness. The common name also expresses the unity of being (5:274, onoma, H. Bietenhard).
https://www.bestcommentaries.com/book/17380/1598564420-church-dogmatics-in-14-volumes-karl-barth
14 Volumes.
Btw, Roman, I got that book. Many thanks!
Yes it is time to plug your book about personhood !!!! I am unaware of it ...
I agree with Barth, his view of theological authority is a little ... well, shaky. What I have read of him is the part of the third volume where he talks of "the nothingness," which I found very useful.
I'll have to check out Brunner, I wonder what it is about reformed theology that makes it so prone to systematic theologies, I feel like most of them come from that tradition.
FR, appeals to authority (especially evangelical dictionaries) are not going to get you far ... yes, of course evangelical dictionaries are going to say Matthew 28:19 points one towards an ontological trinity ... the question is, what are the actual arguments for such a reading?
The Reformed tradition is interesting. Brunner provides some good info on the roots of systematic theology and the field of dogmatics. Systematic thought is rooted in Augustine of Hippo's methodology: the goal is to arrange or systematize our thoughts about God. To get our thoughts organized into various "loci." Owen Thomas is helpful in this regard as well. You might check out Herman Bavinck in the Reformed tradition; he's one of the more thoughtful ones, IMO. Paul Tillich, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Berkhof, and so many others all wrote systematic theologies. So did Charles Hodge. Aquinas is systematic but he and Scotus are different, being part of the Catholic tradition. I used to read lots of systematic theology when time and circumstances permitted, and I enjoyed it. It's now been a whole since I've read an entire volume of systematic theology. Yet the names above are some I'd recommend if you're interested.
The honest Trinitarian theologians know Matthew 28:19 is not solid proof of the Trinity doctrine. It doesn't teach what FR and company think it does.
Here's a link to my personhood book: https://www.amazon.com/Contemplating-Personhood-Theoretical-Analytical-Theological/dp/0989830462
So does that mean those Trinitarians who believe Matthew 29:19 teaches the Trinity are dishonest?
B.B. Warfield: This is a direct ascription to Yahweh, the God of Israel, of a threefold personality, and is therewith the direct enunciation of the doctrine of the Trinity. We are not witnessing here the birth of the doctrine of the Trinity; that is presupposed. What we are witnessing is the authoritative announcement of the Trinity as the God of Christianity by its Founder, in one of the most solemn of His recorded declarations. Israel had worshipped the one only true God under the Name of Yahweh; Christians are to worship the same one only and true God under the Name of "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is the distinguishing characteristic of Christians; and that is as much as to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is, according to our Lord's own apprehension of it, the distinctive mark of the religion which He founded (ISBE, Trinity, See #13 "The Baptismal Formula,").
http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/T/trinity-1.html
Murray Harris: So then, just as in commercial usage payment 'into' someone's name indicated a transfer of money into someone's account, so in baptism there is signified a transference of believers into the permanent possession and safe keeping of the omnipotent Trinity. In baptism God says to the believer, 'You belong to me. You are my adopted son, my adopted daughter, for ever.' And in response the believer says to God, 'I belong to you. I will be your willing slave for ever' (Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Jesus, page 110).
Expositor's GT: τοῦ πατρὸς, etc.: it is the name not of one but of three, forming a baptismal Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is not said into the names of, etc., nor into the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost.—Hence might be deduced the idea of a Trinity constituting at the same time a Divine Unity. But this would probably be reading more into the words than was intended.
Jane Schaberg (The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: The Triadic Phrase in Matthew 28:19b): “To insist that it means that one Name is shared by all three is clearly an anachronistic interpretation. The phrase does not warrant such metaphysical implications laid upon it; it does not indicate that God is perceived as a unity of three equal persons, nor is it evidence of an analysis of interrelations. It cannot be used as evidence that Matt. 28:19b is a ‘Trinitarian’ statement.”
So says Jane without any proof.
See here with evidence at least given:
Ron Rhodes: It is highly revealing that the word ‘name’ is singular in the Greek, indicating that there is one God, but three distinct persons within the Godhead–the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Theologian Robert Reymond draws our attention to the importance of this verse for the doctrine of the Trinity: Jesus does not say, (1) ‘into the names [plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ or what is virtually equivalent, (2) ‘into the name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy Spirit,’ as if we had to deal with three separate Beings [akin to the Muslim charge of tritheism]. Nor does He say, (3) “into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ (omitting the three recurring articles), as if ‘the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost’ might be taken as merely three designations of a single person. What He does say is this: (4) ‘into the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,’ first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single Name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article (Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims, pages 118-119)
I'm off to do other things now, but Schaberg has as much proof as Rhodes and company does. The fact of the matter is that Matthew 28:19-20 does not teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God but three persons. It says zip about their relation to one another as ardent Trinitarian even acknowledge (the honest ones). You guys just read such ideas into the verse. Thanks for giving me a hearty laugh today, FR. :-)
Where is Schaberg's proof. Don't just claim there is. Show it.
The singular "name" encompasses all three. Go ahead and laugh at yourself for asserting things without proof. It's pathetic.
I've been very interested in Pannenberg, because of his focus on history (which I think its also important) and his focus on eschatology (which I also think is central), and his use of Hegel and his idea of retrospective signification. Paul Tillich, is also someone I would like to learn more about.
I have a love/hate relationship with systematic theology: one the one hand, I think it's very important FOR theology that you have it done systematically, including in it all the levels of analysis, natural theology, biblical exegesis, historical analysis, philosophical analysis, and have them systematized so that that they cohere; on the other hand, almost all systematic theology begins from the starting point of the trinity, or is at least grounded in the trinity, which means everything coming from that will be flawed.
Thanks for the link to your book, it's definately gonna by on my next book purchase (I get to buy a small chunk of books every couple of months), you're certainly not a marketer (probably for the best) since I didn't even know you wrote that book! And it's a topic I am extremely interested it :), you should do a little bit of promotion, it's a fascinating topic.
FR, the fact that the scripture includes a triadic formula doesn't demosntrate anything like the orthodox doctrine of the trinity, which isn't just that there is are three things in focus in the economy of slavation ... but that there is in fact three persons in one God ... which is not implied (not even close) by Mathew 28:19.
the singular name also doesn't show anything, "and of the son, and of the holy spirit," doesn't imply the have the same name, the genitive article is used for each one, which implies actually that each has its own name, as opposed to something "lord and savior" (2 Peter 1:11; 2:20. 3:2, 18), where it's clear the object is the same (Christ). Of course this isn't a hard and fast rule, but in Matthew 28:19, it's pretty clear that the singular name is attached individually to each genitive object, even though it's only written once, which we can tell by the use of the article before each instance. In fact even without the article it wouldn't necessitate that the same name is for all three.
Take Acts 3:6 "Silver and gold is not existing (singular) in me" is the singular verb implying that silver and gold are one thing? Obviously not, or Hebrews 10:4 "the blood (singular) of bulls and goats," does that mean that the blood is ontologically the same? Obviously not, or Acts 4:35, "the officer with his attendants led (singular) them" does that mean the office and his attendants are one person? Obviously not .... I could go on and on.
This isn't unique to Greek, we get the same thing in English. Take the sentence "the strength of both the American Army and of the Chinese army depends is changing" The fact that you use "strength" (singular) once doesn't mean they are in fact the same army.
Roman,
I like reading Pannenberg too: his systematic theology is written well. In addition to history, eschatology, and the use of Hegel, his use of Scotus is interesting and he's big on ecclesisology. Hans Kung also wrote a thick work about Hegel and Christology. He tends to be wordy at times but that is another recommended work.
Agree on the Trinity being the starting point--pretty much all systematic theology is that way. Hans Ur Balthasar did the brilliant project on Christian aesthetics and compared God working in salvation history to this magnificent drama, but even that project is thoroughly Trinitarian. Pannenberg, Moltmann, Aquinas and Jenson are all firmly Trinitarian. There is just no escaping this feature of church theology.
One reason I don't market that book, although I've used it before in a class, is that it's usually difficult to get. I never know if the publisher will have copies or not.
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/matthew28_19.html
Some interesting points here that need further investigation.
It's a shame really, that so much brilliant theology ends up being being laid on a faulty foundation, imagine if those brilliant minds built their theology on a better foundation.
Post a Comment