This is meant to be a light blog post, but it might spark a little discussion. The Trinitarian statements I have in mind can be found here: https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-council-of-nicaea-and-subatomic.html
I hope the author is somewhat joking, but I have seen philosophers and theologians appeal to QM/QP to support their belief in the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ. For example, they reason that light is both a wave and a particle, so Christ could be God and man simultaneously and fully God, fully man.
But see https://heidelblog.net/2013/07/why-analogies-and-illustrations-of-the-trinity-fail/
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Random thought (I have alot of these as you can tell): these sound very similar to the pronoun argument..
ReplyDeleteI believe Trinitarians try to have it both ways with pronouns. Pronouns don't matter much when the holy spirit is neuter or feminine grammatically, but if the spirit is depicted in masculine terms, it becomes proof/quasi-proof that the spirit is God. Another manuever is to just ignore the grammatical gendr and insist that since the spirit is God, go ahead and translate a neuter pronoun with masculine terms.
ReplyDelete2 Corinthians 3:17 is the closest you'll get to explicit proof of the spirit being God - but the second clause renders that useless as then what it the spirit of the lord?
ReplyDeleteAlso funny how they refer to particle physics to prove a doctrine where that didn't even exist... and if the concept of God is this complicated the writers took the most highly interpretive misleading route to write about it ever..
ReplyDeleteThe bible was written for everyone - don't need to know physics to understand a concept that should be stated explicitly
I think the TOF website, which I included the link to in the blog post, mentioned "subatomic physics" and the Trinity doctrine as somewhat of a joke, but there is probably some seriousness there as well. I've also heard other Trinitarians use this example with all seriousness, so it's not merely a joke to them.
ReplyDeleteI agree that one doesn't need a complex idea to elucidate God's nature: Jesus spoke simple words and employed rudimentary illustrations to teach people about God. Besides, I believe particle physics does not support the Trinity or the belief that Jesus was the God-man. The example itself falls flat.
The claim that each member of the trinity is "fully God" is where the house of cards comes tumbling down. Because if this expression does not mean entitled to exclusive devotion
ReplyDeleteor superlative it's just a word salad,and of course no member of trinity can sensibly be regarded as superlative or entitled to exclusive devotion .
Psalm 83ch.83:18ASV"That they may know that thou ALONE, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the MOST HIGH over all the earth."
I think we've had this conversation before, servant, but by "fully God," Trinitarians usually mean that every attribute which the Father possesses or is (in the case of divine simplicity), the Son also has the same attribute equally. The only thing different between Father and Son (ontologically) is that the Father is Father and the Son is Son. If the Father is omnipotent, then the Son is omnipotent; if the Father is omniscient, then Trinitarians argue the Son is as well.
ReplyDeletePart of the Chalcedonian Creed/Chalcedonian Definition states: "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body"
An article at Ligonier Ministries makes this claim: "Or to put it more simply, Christ is fully and truly man, fully and truly God, at the same time, in a single person."
To my knowledge, most churches don't use the expression, "exclusive devotion," but they would insist that the Son of God should be worshiped along with the Father and holy spirit and they would insist that Jesus is Almighty God and the Most High God along with two other persons.
I am fully Cognizant of trinitarians mental gymnastics. I'm dealing with the scriptures' take on the issue. There is one who is fully God i.e entitled to exclusive devotion ,one very important reason for his being entitled to this exclusive devotion is that he is The supreme being. There is no constituent of the trinity that matches the bible's description of JEHOVAH. So the issue JEHOVAH'S identity is left unaddressed by the doctrine of the trinity. That is why I said that assigning any other meaning to the term full deity other than supremacy renders that term useless re:the identity of the most high God.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I agree with you that Jehovah is deserving of our exclusive devotion and he is the supreme being/Most High God. Most Trinitarians believe their God is the true one and that the Bible is on their side, but I know you're aware of that.
ReplyDeleteHow would you define "supremacy" in this context? Thanks.
In the future, I still plan to post what Trinitarians claim about their view of God, but it might be July before I have time to collate the articles.
Dictionary.com: supreme:(1)highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief.
ReplyDelete(2)of the highest quality, degree, character, importance, etc.:
So having no equals either in rank or status or in the qualifications required to be worthy of said rank or status.
Due to the polyvalent nature of the Trinity, one cannot give a unified account of the doctrine. Some hold that there is "eternal subordination" within the triune Godhead while others deny such subordination. Others frame matters in terms of functional subordination, but no ontological subordination. I will let the Trinitarians speak for themselves, but thanks for clarifying supremacy.
ReplyDeleteAre the subordinationists in the minority or the majority?
ReplyDeleteWhat I am definitely picking up here is that there is no agreement among trinitarians as to the meaning of "fully God"
subordination is just a way to get around the forgiving clause - "The holy spirit is more divine"
ReplyDelete"Fully God" - doesn't make much sense as none are the trinity or all of God alone
In this case I agree with Stafford, they don't say what they mean - if they did it would sound like polytheism.
ironically the Divine name being replaced in the OT is some of the problem, of which people like Bowman even insist that it shouldn't even be in the OT... how conveininant as without it, the trinity can thrive
I think Trinitarian subordination has become more widespread since the modern period. One can see traces of the idea in ancient and medieval times, but I see more of subordinationist thought in modern times. Many Evangelicals have accepted functional subordination in the Trinity, but a point of contention is whether the subordination is eternal or "economic."
ReplyDeleteIMO, Trinitarians pretty much mean the same thing by "fully God" or "truly God" as Chalcedon said. They mean that the the persons of the Godhead are divine, having all attributes proper for a divine being or the most excellent being.
Again, not defending them, but fully God/truly God means they have all of the divine attributes in a compossible sense: i.e., omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.
ReplyDeleteBowman is just wrong; I'm not sure how he gets around YHWH being in the Hebrew Bible. Even John Gill and John Calvin (among others) appreciated the divine name to some extent.
Anonymous, maybe you can explain what Bowman means by the divine name should not be in the OT. I've found places where he uses the form "Jehovah."
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing the scriptures describe JEHOVAH using certain superlatives which entitle him to receive exclusive devotion. Thus when the word 'Theos' is used re:JEHOVAH in scripture, It is being used as both the identifier and the qualifier of the unique member of the category of only true God. So from a scriptural standpoint only that single object(the Lord JEHOVAH) can be regarded as fully God and any object not numerically identical to Him/it? can only be positively identified or qualified as Theos in a lesser sense ,obviously if someone is coequal to one one is not supreme. So while I am fully aware of how Trinitarians use the expression fully God with reference to their dogma . Such use is not sensible in view of the way the bible uses The word Theos re: JEHOVAH.
ReplyDeleteServant, to be clear, I don't agree with the Trinitarian perspective, but most will insist that they're on firm ground scripturally and that Jehovah's Witnesses are the unorthodox ones.
ReplyDeleteOne trend that I've observed with academic theologians is a type of monarchic thinking. However, this view characterizes Eastern Orthodox thinking.
I am sure they would insist that theirs is the scriptural view ,but I have never met a Trinitarian who was able to state why my premises were false. So not merely is the trinity dogma contradictory re:the bible it is self contradictory. If monarchists acknowledge, as the bible repeatedly does ,that the Father is the God of the Son how could they consistently claim that the only true God is triune?
ReplyDeleteFrom Bowman's article at Christian.net
ReplyDelete"The essence of God's name "Jehovah," then, regardless of the precise original meaning of the Hebrew form, is that He is absolutely supreme and in control of everything. In short, the name "Jehovah" reveals God as Lord -- as the all-sovereign Lord of creation, of history, and of His people. It would appear to be no accident, then, and no mistake, that "Lord" has come to take the place of "Jehovah" both in the New Testament and in most translations of the Old Testament. "
Thanks for the Bowman quote.
ReplyDeleteI don't think monarchism works, but I will lay out their reasons for believing it's true when time permits
The quote is here, but I'm either misremembering or this article has been altered, or its in another article (very former more likely) apologies Edgar
ReplyDelete“However, we do not endorse his view that translations of the Old Testament necessarily should use a form of the divine name (Yahweh or Jehovah). ”
(https://wit.irr.org/was-name-jehovah-originally-used-in-new-testament)
Anonymous, thanks also for the quote
ReplyDeleteThis is technically on subject:
ReplyDeleteWithout the divine name in the NT the trinity can thrive - would you consider George Howards theory (speicifcally) relevant, "scholarly" and a possible explanation?
Yes, I do look at Howard's theory that way. I've read challenges to his theory and it's not widely accepted, but it's scholarly and needs to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteIv seen others who accept (all non Witnesses) David trobish for instance
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Some in the academic world do accept his theory or a form of it, and I read Trobisch many years ago. He's good and respected by many. Of course, Howard's theory should stand on it's own merits but if the entire guild rejects it, which they don't, he would never be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteI mean this in all seriousness. Don't expect attitudes toward YHWH originally being in the NT to change unless someone finds a MS that contains the name. Even then, there will likely be skeptics.
Oh I by no means expect attitudes to change - Look at Beduhn who also disagrees, I just find it interesting that some do not consider Howards theory "scholarly" or accuse Gerald Geroux of being a witness, when he isnt
ReplyDelete(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjpGXSyIqTc) - I know of at least 5 scholars who agree with Howard.
My problem generally stems from obvious lies (Allin) or information I know to be incorrect but do not know how to give an answer too (one sentence generally)
interesting to note to this discussion and theorys on morphe is Greg Staffords video on the topic:
his whole series is interesting but this is of particular interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CWDZPbplS0&list=PLpGn2SXupSYPWidVY6iWGGK0CsjCZIrxG&index=15&t=75s
In his books he makes the claim that "Form of God" should be "form of a god" - while he isn't wrong in some areas (Angels are called "gods") the context would seem to advocate for the definite God genitives are already understood as definite and based on how "ownership" works in the bible it would seem "Form of God" is more attune to understanding rather than to paraphrase "Form of Angels"
oh and my reference to "pronoun argument" is what this claims: https://www.youtube.com/live/Hwt3PnTDYHs?feature=share&t=3607
ReplyDeleteI think the backlash to Howard's theory is mainly driven by animus for Witnesses. I'm not saying that scholars can't have an honest disagreement or productive dialogue with Howard's theory because I believe some have. However, to call his theory "unscholarly" is wrong and propagandistic IMO. Good point about the scholars who agree with Howard.
ReplyDeleteGerard Gertoux was once a Witness: I'm not sure what his spiritual status is now, but I'm pretty certain he used to be a Witness.
I'm still reading Allin and I've found places in his book where he utterly misrepresents BeDuhn, and I wonder if some of it, is not done on purpose. I can't read the man's heart but he has a fixation with discrediting BeDuhn ex toto (as they say in Latin), that is, totally. But this leads him to commit fundamental errors respecting truth.
I know grammatically that morphe theou could be translated "form of a god," but I agree with you that it's probably better rendered "form of God" based on context and usage. I've also examined other anarthrous uses of theos in Philippians that inform my view.
I bookmarked the YT videos and will check them out later. My schedule has been tight here lately and getting tighter. Among other things, we're building a kingdom hall in our area and quite excited about that.
Best regards.
I did listen to what "Pastor Mike" says about pronouns and the Trinity, part of which sounded like a copout. First, he claims that the "he" speaking in the Hebrew Bible could be either one of the three persons (somewhat beginning the question) or it could be the triune God himself. Take your pick.
ReplyDeleteThen he does a similar move with elohim: it's not genuinely plural in the case of God (YHWH) because it's paired with singular verbs, but the Hebrews could have been playing with the idea of plurality in God or they were potentially referring to the Trinity. Either way, Pastor Mike can't lose.
scholars who support Howard include
ReplyDeleteLloyd Gaston
Frank Shaw
David Trobish
John McRay
Luise schottroff
"scholars" (not sure if any of these count as scholars)
Greg Stafford - idk if he is considered a scholar, don even know if he has any formal training
Rolf furuli
Emmanuel Tov
Gerard Gertoux (didn't know he was once a witness, saw someone say that video was a JW production - I have my doubts tho)
Daniel Wallace once stated somewhere he had a frag of the NT with the name in, tho nothing ever came of it
Like you tho I remain unconvinced it wasn't, considering the LXX and Stafford's arguments + the importance placed on it in the OT
Rev is rather hard to interpret without it tho.
I look forward to your post (or whatever) on Allin - Im sure Ill learn alot from it
What Winger fails to note is that if it was one person of a trinity talking why wasnt it labeled as such, surely Moses (or whoever) would have realised the confusion that could be caused in later generations
aren't genitives automatically understood as definite anyways? even without the article the on indefinite genitive I can find is in the LXX and its inverted
ReplyDeleteI believe this forum post covers most of the opinions: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6276841381822464/most-successful-teaching-jehovahs-witnesses-amazing-new-book-on-divine-name
ReplyDelete(not an official website, rather a forum)
For some genitive uses, see Revelation 6:6, Romans 1:1, Mark 1:4.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Howard info and link.
A lot of trinitarians believe the doctrine of triunity was latent in the OT, but became mature in the NT. So it's like an acorn that blossoms into an oak tree and we need holy spirit or the church to understand it.
They also say that three leads to one and one to three.
sorry Edgar, how are those different than the others considered definite? context? I notice 6:6 is "inverted"
ReplyDeleteinteresting one for deity of teh spirit: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/8-11.htm
ReplyDeleteThey seem to use ROm 8:11 in conjunction with "Jehovah is the spirit"
ownership clause perhaps?
Unknown, would we translate the genitive in Mark 1:4 as "baptism for the repentance of the sins"?
ReplyDeleteRegarding Revelation 6:6, I'm focusing on δηναρίου, which is probably best not translated with a definite article, right? "for a denarius"
Romans 1:1 has the genitivebof apposition, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ"
ReplyDeleteI guess you could translate Romans 1:1 with "the servant," but that's likely not what Paul meant
ReplyDeleteboth Mark 1:4 and 6:6 are probably best indefinite yes - Romans could be both grammatically, but "the" would indicate Paul is the only one - which he is not.
ReplyDelete6:6 "for the" seems abit far fetched
So it would be context dependant then whether a genitive is indefinite - which in some cases could be hard to figure out
p.s Just wondering what your thoughts are on my other comment
Unknown, if you're talking about αὐτοῦ Πνεύματος in Romans 8:11, I take that phrase to be a genitive of possession ("his spirit").
ReplyDeleteinteresting parallel I found earlier - John 10:33 & acts 28:6 is there any other reason besides theology to translate them differently?
ReplyDeleteaccu after the verb, no article - only difference is person of focus
(https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Truth_in_Translation/EgnIp2Bzdi8C?hl=en&gbpv=1) - see page 139. on accu holy spirit (I realsie John 1:18 is the exception, though not sure why. emphasis?)
You're right that theology is probably the reason why John 10:33 is not rendered "a god" although it could be, but "God" is a possible rendering too. But the same must be said for Acts 28:6, if it were not for the referent of the noun (Paul).
ReplyDeleteHowever, while I respect Jason, I disagree that Luke 2:25 or 11:13 must be translated "a holy spirit." Both Dana Harris and Daniel Wallace (and Robert Young) cover this issue of how the Greek article likely works. Harris puts it quite emphatically that anarthrousness alone (even with the accusative) does not determine a noun's semantic force. As you said with John 1:18, theon is likely emphatic, but I think we all realize that the construction there should not be translated, "a god." Context is a major factor that should determine in large part, how we translate.
Compare Luke 1:35.
ReplyDeleteActs 8:15-19; 19:2
ReplyDeleteMy personal theory:
ReplyDeleteJohn used the article with theon many times and one use of the article is identifying that you are still talking about the same person as before, John may have felt since Theon is A. emphasis and B. he has already marked theon so many times he thought he could safely drop the article
My point about those is 2 is consistency - either do both as a god or as "God" not the same construction 2 different ways..
I think Jason is right in one context where the people said "they have not received [a/ any] holy spirit" since they didn't know what it was, it would have to be indefinite
Anonymous, I agree that a writer sometimes appears to omit the article for his own particular reasons, but from my previous study of the article, I would say it's hard to explain every anarthrous case. But you may have a point about theon.
ReplyDeleteHere is just some things to consider:
A. T. Robertson and Dana-Mantey point out that the article in ancient Greek is not simply a haphazard use of speech:
"The vital thing is to see the matter from the Greek point of view and find the reason for the use of the article" (Robertson 756).
"It may be observed that in Homer 'the article marks contrast and not mere definiteness' " (Ibid., 755).
"The articular construction emphasizes identity; the anarthrous construction emphasizes character . . . It is certain that one engaged in exegesis cannot afford to disregard the article. The New Testament justifies the observation of Bultmann that 'the use of the article has everywhere its positive reason' " (D-M 140).
"Surely when Robertson says that QEOS, as to the article, 'is treated like a proper name and may have it or not have it'(R. 761), he does not mean to intimate that the presence or absence of the article with QEOS has no special significance. We construe him to mean that there is no definite rule governing the use of the article with QEOS, so that sometimes the writer's viewpoint is difficult to detect, which is entirely true" (D-M 140).
Other things could be said, but just some things to ponder.
Consistency would be nice but the belief that Jesus is God is so ingrained that hardly any "orthodox" translator is going to render Johannine verses in a way that diminishes the Godhood of Christ, as they see it.
ReplyDeleteI love Jason's work, but where I might part ways are places where he thinks "a holy spirit" is correct, but I don't see how it could be anything but THE holy spirit like Luke 11:13. At any rate, I believe there are counterexamples to his contention, but I'm not about to go all Allin on him :-)
I mean Allins bad (in a funny way) - until you encounter (come across) someone who links Biblehub (an evangelical leaning website btw) as "proof" the holy spirit is a "he" and takes a masculine antecedent .. like what does biblehub prove? nothing - it literally favours trinitarian bibles of course they all put "he"
ReplyDelete- really needs to read Wallace's study (ik Wallace is not the most honest person in the world, but ill cite him for this point)
"Jesus is God is so ingrained that hardly any "orthodox" translator is going to render Johannine verses in a way that diminishes the Godhood of Christ"
- they should probably do a slightly better job in some areas - John 10's quote "you are gods" (which I see as qualitative) proves theos is used in 2 different senses, whether Stafford is right about it being addressed to Angels or human judges in John 10's context is up to you (I see it as being addressed to angels in the original and judges in John, though the orignal could have its original application to Humans aswell - other places imply angels are gods "bow down to him all you gods" (NWT))
I give the translators of the NWT (idk who they are, only one I know might be is Fred Franz) props for rendering it "legitimately" the NWT is no where near perfect imo.. indefinite proper nouns I take huge issue with [e.g a God] "not a God [of the dead]" - like make it definite or indefinite (probs indefinite is the intended meaning) but either works just not whatever that is.
I am one to strongly critisize blindly hating on JW's tho - "Christians" shouldn't do that, We were never told to do that even to the antichrist.. shows the calibre of evangelicals really and makes the Witnesses look really good.
oddly enough for Luke 11:13 the NWT omits the article entirely also in Acts 1:2 & Acts 1:5, which both constitute prepositional constructions where as 11:13 doesn't - admittedly the Acts clauses may not both be accusative.
Jason is the first person who's book I picked up to try and learn some koine Greek. He is one person who would be interesting to sit down and have a conversation with - Harner and Dixon being 2 others
sorry Edgar slightly off topic the NET has footnotes at ps 45:6 & is 9:6 about representatives being treated like they are God and disobeying them is like disobeying God - I remember the bible pointing this out explicitly somewhere do you happen to know where it is.
ReplyDeletereally peeving me off..
That's okay about the topic, Unknown. These links might help you:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+45%3A6&version=NET
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+9%3A6&version=NET#fen-NET-17836e
Regarding Ps. 82 and John 10:33ff, it could go either way in terms of who the "gods" are. I've read a number of studies about that topic that include a two dissertations, with one of them being Michael Heiser's work. To be honest, I just left off studying the subject because the scholarship on those verses is all over the place. But the two likely options in my mind are either angels or human judges.
ReplyDeleteOne problem with rendering the passage about the thornbush account ("a God of the dead" or "a god of the dead") is that YHWH (Jehovah) is the referent there, and in the eyes of English prescriptivist, the word for the supreme being is always capitalized. However, I think N.T. Wright balks at that convention and has written "god" when referencing Almighty God. Another issue here is that the Bible writers did not make such distinctions, between God and god. Furthermore, as I said earlier, anarthrousness does not always equal indefiniteness in Greek as I think you've said before too.
I also like the holy spirit article by Wallace and I've benefited from his grammar for the most part. The mot problematic aspects of his grammar (IMO) are when he discusses "Trinitarian" passages. One could quip about other matters, but there is much to be learned in terms of grammar from Wallace.
sorry Edgar you misunderstood my question I know about those footnotes in the NET, do you know the bible verse where that is stated explicitly? I think it has something to do with parenting
ReplyDelete“No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (see Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67)
The representative was seen as being the person they were representing - hence John 20:28 and others
conveiniant I find this considering my comment about biblehub and it being apparent "proof"
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/30145148/The_Lord_is_the_Spirit_2_Cor_3_17_18?email_work_card=view-paper
"anarthrousness does not always equal indefiniteness in Greek as I think you've said before too." many factors go into it Dana and Mantey made a similar point even when attacking the NWT
ReplyDeletee.g John 1:18, only begotten son (or god) is without the article but is definite due to a demonstrative in the very next clause
Sorry Anonymous, but I'm drawing a blank. I can't think of a Bible verse right now that explicitly states God's representatives are treated like him. I mean, you know about Moses and how if anyone disobeyed Moses, it was like disobeying Jehovah. There is also the Shaliach principle, but that is not explicitly stated in the Bible. What about Zechariah 2:8?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link.
For other anarthrous instances, see Romans 9:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4; 2 Corinthians 1:3.
Thanks for that Edgar - no worries at all, I think it might be the Moses text.
ReplyDeleteanother quick random question: I'm seeing a lot on the Westcott and hort vs text receptus text pop up in my research- any insight?
I have some stuff on WH here and numerous books about it. I like Philip Comfort, Bruce Metzger, the Alands, Stanley Porter, etc. But I have a book that tries to defend the TR too.
ReplyDeleteSee https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/10/stanley-porter-assesses-westcott-and.html?m=1
ReplyDeleteSee also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/01/nwt-p-comfort-and-westcott-hort-text.html
ReplyDeleteIn fact, God Himself is a mystery, since the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite God. The fact that the trinity is a mystery does not mean that what is in Revelation cannot be understood by reason. The doctrine of the Trinity summarizes the biblical data: there is only one God, but at the same time there are three persons, who by nature are what only God can be, and who do things that only God can do. God is one God in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is not meaningless, it is just beyond reason, unprecedented in the created world: God does not resemble human ideas (cf. Acts 17:29). Otherwise, the term "Jehovah" or "theocratic organization" is not in the Bible either. 1 Cor 14:33 does not speak about the being of God, but about the need for church order (i.e. he is the God of peace).
ReplyDelete"Mystery of faith" (mysterium fidei) in the full sense of the word: every religious truth that the mind, with its sheer natural talents, cannot either determine or understand with its specific concepts. Thus, it contains two components: The mind on its own cannot determine its existence, and even if it has gained knowledge of its existence through revelation, it is subsequently unable to justify it with purely natural reasons; moreover, it cannot define its meaning with specific, but only with analogical concepts. In other words: A mystery of faith is such a religious truth for which the mind on its own cannot determine either that the predicate "must" be asserted about the subject, or that the predicate "can" be asserted about the subject; for example, the one God is three persons; Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine. If either of these two components is missing, that is, if the existence of a religious truth can be recognized by reason, but its manner is not comprehensible (for example, God created the world), or its existence cannot be determined by reason, but once we learned it from revelation, its content is already accessible to reason (for example, Christ appointed a head for His Church; there are seven sacraments), then we are not dealing with a mystery of faith in the full sense of the word, a primary mystery, but only with a secondary mystery of faith.
Those who define the mystery of faith as the incomprehensible, indomitable religious truth do not define it accurately. Because there is something incomprehensible, indomitable in every human knowledge; and that is why the deeper-thinking people of every age talk a lot about the depths and mysteries of existence, and praise the docta ignorantia (Nicholas of Cusa). However, this is something entirely different from the nature of the Catholic mystery. The world of nature hides secrets because our mind does not create its realities but faces them as givens and can only perceive them fragmentarily; the mystery of faith, on the other hand, cannot be measured by reason because it is from the higher, superhuman world of realities.
The Bible uses the word "mystery" in two different senses. Generally, it tends to refer to an event or phenomenon in which God and man meet each other, and God gives Himself as a gift to man (Eph 1:9; 3:9-11; 5:32; Col 1:26). The other meaning of the mystery in the Bible is concealment and incomprehensibility (Rom 11:25; cf. 11:33-34; 1Cor 15:51; Rev 17:7). In this regard, theologians categorize the mystery of the Trinity among the so-called absolute mysteries (mysteria absoluta).
The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense is indicated by the Jesus himself when he says: "No one knows the Son except the Father; no one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Mt 11,27.) John the Evangelist: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son (the only begotten God), who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him." (Jn 1,18) Paul the apostle: "No one knows the things of God, except the Spirit of God." (1 Cor 2:11; cf. 1 Tim 6:16.) Since the Church Fathers Irenaeus and Origen, it has been unequivocally taught that the Trinity surpasses the mind. When the Arians boldly wanted to lift the veil that covers the inner nature of the Deity, their main weapon against their heretical position was reference to the mystery of the Trinity (Iren. II 28, 6; Origen. Princip. IV 1; Athanas. Serap. I 20; Cyril. H. Cat. 4, 7; Basil. Ep. 38, 4; Nazianz. Or. 31, 8; Nyssen. Or. cat. 3; Cyril. Al. Trinit. 3; August. Trinit. IX 1.).
ReplyDeleteBut what does this mean? It cannot be determined by the mere powers of the natural mind that the one divine reality is a trinity of persons.
It's not a posteriori: for the a posteriori proof of God starts from the created world and reaches the absolute being through the thread of causality. It is already a theologically established truth that God's trinity as such is not manifested in creation; for God's external activity is the common work of the three persons: Therefore, the mind does not have a foothold in creation to recognize the one God subsisting in three persons as the absolute being.
And it's not a priori either: we cannot deduce the Trinity from the nature of God known through reason; partly because we do not know the divine reality in a proportionate way, partly because experience does not provide any analogy for a triple relative subsistence of one substance.
But even if we have come into possession of this mystery through revelation, we can neither understand nor subsequently justify it. For even if the analogy of human spiritual life suggests that God's absolute life cannot lack the richness that feeds on the contrast of spiritual activities and life contents, and even if the mind faithfully following the traces of revelation can penetrate a good way into the cloud hiding the Divinity, its laborious thought processes invariably lose their way at three landmarks in the impenetrable fog sea of the mystery:
Initially, independently of the revelation, the mind cannot determine that there are only two categories of spiritual activities and capabilities, reason and will, and hence only two origins are possible in God.
Initially, without revelation, it cannot determine and prove to be necessary that divine life activities are productive; because it is very conceivable from the outset that the object and proportional expression of divine understanding and volition is the independent infinite absolute reality, without the difference of opposing subsistent aspects.
Independently of revelation, the mind can neither determine nor judge it possible that the one divine absolute reality can be the existential content of three subsistent aspects, which are only value-differently from it, but are really different from each other.
While the Trinity is a supra-rational truth, it is not irrational, but completely rational. For the Trinity is God's self-revelation. But God is absolute reason, therefore this revelation is the radiance and evidence of absolute reason. God cannot give anything other than what is his essence. True, the Trinity is a mystery in the strict sense of the word, and therefore the human mind cannot fully demonstrate the logic that this mystery contains. But for this very reason, irrationality cannot be demonstrated from it either. The mind on its own can determine that God is immeasurably superior; this unattainability is always maintained for our mind, whether it reaches for it for understanding or for refutation.
But the mind, illuminated by revelation, can demonstrate in a negative direction that the mystery of the Trinity does not contradict clear arguments, and in a positive direction it can catch a ray of the abundance of light bursting forth from it.
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine of the Trinity could only be shown to be irrational if it contradicted any logical principle, namely the principle of identity and contradiction. But this is not the case. We do not say that the same subject is one and three, but we affirm that the divine reality is one, and the persons are three; or we call the substance one and we state the subsistence as relatively three.
Indeed, the content of the mystery of the Trinity (the triple relative subsistence of one absolute reality) contradicts experience, even the metaphysical findings derived from the material of experience. But its irrationality cannot be inferred from this. For every deeper thinking person has sensed that experience does not exhaust the categories and possibilities of existence, and that is why even within this world, the mind inferring from the present to the past, from the here to the far, is cautiously warned not to hastily infer from non-existence to impossibility. This is particularly true when the mind, leaving the ground of experience beneath itself, rises toward the regions of the absolute Being, where, according to the strict requirement of natural theology, every metaphysical concept must be re-evaluated with the triple method of God-knowledge. Therefore, it cannot be said that the relatively triple subsistence of the absolute Being is irrational; the less so, because reason also determines that God is above the sexes, therefore the Aristotelian categories cannot set a limit to his existential content and mode of existence.
The mind can first and foremost pour its content into systematically processed concepts and thus speak appropriately about it; it can determine which expressions and phrases correspond to the content of the mystery and which do not.
The general rule of speaking about the Trinity is: everything in God is one, where there is no contrast of relations; therefore, if the excellence of nature is the predicate, the subject can be nature or a person; if the predicate is personal excellence, the subject can only be a person. If we now consider that the concrete noun (and the male adjective in Indo-European languages) generally denotes the autonomous reality, the suppositum, hence the person in the doctrine of the Trinity, the abstract noun (and the neuter adjective) denotes the nature, it is generally not difficult to navigate and determine the correctness or incorrectness of a phrase or expression. Thus,
a) we can say that the Father, as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit, are eternal, omnipotent, etc., but we cannot speak of three eternal or omnipotent entities.
b) It is correct: the Son is someone else (alius) than the Father, but not: the Son is something else (aliud). It's correct: the one God is in three distinct persons (in tribus personis distinctis), not correct: the one God is divided into three persons (in tribus personis distinctus), as this endangers the unity of the essence.
c) We can say: God begets, God breathes; the Son is God from God; because the concrete noun signifies the suppositum; but we can't say: divinity begets, divinity is Father. However, often the established language usage decides. The speech of the believer cannot roam freely like that of the philosopher; "our speech must be according to a definite rule, lest the liberty of speech should generate an impious belief about the thing itself". (August. Civ. Dei X 23.) If anywhere, here, in the mystery of mysteries, Paul's warning is appropriate: "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter". (1 Tim 6,20. How much the sealed language usage of the Church decides is a telling example: the Latin Deus triplex is incorrect, but the identical etymon, dreifaltig, threefold is orthodox.)
The believing mind may attempt, in the humble consciousness of its limitations, to illuminate some aspects of the mystery of the Trinity with analogies taken from natural or supernatural life. Of course, it must not forget that in these there will always be more difference than similarity; each one is only good for casting a faint, fading light on one aspect of the mystery. The Greek church fathers used more external analogies: the sun, its light, its ray; in a tree the root, trunk, flower; plant, flower, fragrance; source, stream, estuary; three torches that are ignited from each other (perhaps better: three torches whose flames merge). The newer catechesis and speculation also refer to other analogies: the three dimensions of space, the three moments of time (past, present, future); the three moments of processes: beginning, continuation, end; the three transcendent basic properties: one, true, good; the three basic categories of causality: real, formal and goal-cause (with the last two in relation to the three proofs of God the onto-, nomo-, teleological). The most fruitful analogy, however, is human spiritual life. The Greeks also stayed more on the surface here, as they associated the second divine person, the Word, with the spoken word, the Holy Spirit with the breath. The brilliant mind of Augustine reached the root of spiritual existence, and there he found the purest mirror image of the Trinitarian origins: "The Trinity gives a certain image of itself in the intellect and in the knowledge, which is the offspring of the intellect: the word it says about itself; thirdly, love; and these three are one substance. And the Begotten One is not less, for the intellect knows itself as much as its existence is; and love is not less, for it loves itself as much as it knows itself, and as much as it exists". (August. Trinit. IX 12, 18.)
ReplyDeleteIf we consider any of the aspects that make up the mystery of the Trinity as given from the revelation, we can almost unravel the rest along its thread; a clear sign of how powerful logic prevails in all the relations of the Trinity. For example, if we take this truth as given: there are two fertile origins in God, we can deduce that these origins are immanent, eternal, and substantial, that their product can only be a person and there can only be three persons, two of whom generate the third as one principle.
Finally, the believing mind can reveal the philosophical, theological, and religious significance of the mystery of the Trinity.