My discovery that highly respected Christian philosopher William Lane Craig does not believe the Persons of the Trinity to be identical to God (because of the absurdities involved in the notion of three things being identical to a fourth thing but not to each other) is quite liberating. It’s good to know that my own views on the Trinity are scarcely less orthodox than those of such a highly respected Christian apologist. However, Craig’s view does leave open some important questions. For example, if he doesn’t think the Persons of the Trinity are identical with God, what does he think they are? And if the Persons can be referred to as God in a non-identity way, “such as ascribing a title or office… or ascribing a property”, does this mean that they really are God? If so, does Craig then think that the Godhead consists of one supreme God (the Trinity) and three lesser Gods (the Persons)? If Craig doesn’t think the Persons really are God then whatever he is defending, surely it is not the doctrine of the Trinity as traditionally understood by the Church, either protestant or catholic.
In my opinion, the reason why it is appropriate and meaningful to refer to the Son as God is that He fully reveals and represents God for us; the reason it is appropriate and meaningful to refer to God's Spirit as God is the fact that it is by His Spirit that God is present with us - and the fact that neither is strictly identical with God means that the word is best understood as being applied to them in a figurative or symbolic way.
No comments:
Post a Comment