...as opposed to the traditional one which, I believe, involves extra-biblical concepts which render it incoherent:
The Father is the only true God (John 17:3); the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son (John 14:11); the Son and the Father are one (John 10:30); whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father (John 14:9); the Son is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15); the Son is the exact representation of God's being (Hebrews 1:3); the fullness of Deity dwells bodily in the Son (Colossians 2:9); if you lie to the Holy Spirit you are lying to God (Acts 5:4); the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9).
Anything beyond these simple yet profound biblical statements about the unity of God and Christ in the Spirit (eg. notions of three distinct Persons each of whom constitutes the same one Being) is, in my opinion, pure speculation and should not be made into a requirement of orthodoxy.
No doubt many people would point to John 1:1 as an essential addition to the above list, which it most certainly is. I omitted it simply because of the ambiguity over how it should be translated. My preferred translation is 'what God was, the Word was' (New English Bible), as it takes into account the lack of a definite article (ho) before the word for God (theos) when applied to the Word (logos) - although I can't claim to have any real knowledge of Greek, biblical or otherwise.
Wednesday 30 March 2016
Thursday 24 March 2016
As you were...
Every now and then I get carried away with the desire not to be a heretic and I fall into the trap of coming up with a new configuration of some version of the doctrine of the Trinity (DOT) that I've already 'debunked' in the past, and allowing myself to be taken in by it for a little while, fooling myself that I have subjected the theory to proper analysis when in fact such is the psychological pleasure of feeling myself to be within the fold of Christian orthodoxy that I have, unconsciously, held myself back from employing the appropriate level of critical rigour.
Such was the case with my recent 'grammar of infinity' model of the Trinity (see previous post) which, once put through its analytical paces, revealed itself as a failure for all the usual reasons.
Basically, if there is something that there is only one of (God) then the Persons either are that thing that there is only one of - in which case there must be only one Person - or the Persons are not the thing that there is only one of - in which case they are not God. You just can't have it both ways!
In my GOI model, the thing that there was only one of was the extent of the divine attributes and, while all the Persons may share that same (infinite) extent to their attributes, none of them is identical to the extent of their attributes. It's the usual problem of the fact that while each of the Persons may share the one divine nature, it cannot be the case that each of them is the divine nature - so if the divine nature is God then the Persons are not God and if the divine nature is not God then the fact that there is only one of it does not help resolve the problem of the DOT.
Such was the case with my recent 'grammar of infinity' model of the Trinity (see previous post) which, once put through its analytical paces, revealed itself as a failure for all the usual reasons.
Basically, if there is something that there is only one of (God) then the Persons either are that thing that there is only one of - in which case there must be only one Person - or the Persons are not the thing that there is only one of - in which case they are not God. You just can't have it both ways!
In my GOI model, the thing that there was only one of was the extent of the divine attributes and, while all the Persons may share that same (infinite) extent to their attributes, none of them is identical to the extent of their attributes. It's the usual problem of the fact that while each of the Persons may share the one divine nature, it cannot be the case that each of them is the divine nature - so if the divine nature is God then the Persons are not God and if the divine nature is not God then the fact that there is only one of it does not help resolve the problem of the DOT.
Saturday 19 March 2016
Doctrine of the Trinity - the grammar of infinity
Throughout this blog I have shown how, up until now, I have found it impossible to come to an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity (DOT) which is both logically coherent and (small 'o') orthodox.
Now, however, I seem to have arrived at a conception of the DOT which, while it admittedly involves some unusual use of grammar, does seem - to me at any rate - to actually make sense and not involve any heretical conclusions.
The model of the Trinity that I now espouse works like this:
Imagine three people - let's call them Tom, Dick and Harriet. Considered together they make up a group of three human beings. As a group they have roughly three times the strength that each of them has as an individual; for example, if Tom's car were to have a flat battery and need a push start, Tom might not be able, on his own, to push the car very far - but with the help of his friends, Dick and Harriet, he will do a much better job.
A similar situation obtains with regard to knowledge. True, there will be some overlap in terms of what each of them knows, but certainly each of them will know plenty of stuff that the other two don't, so their combined knowledge is much greater than that which each of them possesses as an individual.
Tom, Dick and Harriet probably aren't exactly the same size as each other but, roughly speaking, as a group they will occupy three times the space that each of them occupies as an individual.
A similar ratio of three to one will apply to all other areas of these three people's existence as a group.
The situation with regard to the divine Persons is, however, very different: each of them is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent - therefore the power held by each of the individual Persons is no less than that held by the group as a whole; each Person has no less knowledge than the group and, since they are present everywhere, each Person occupies no less space than the three of them do together. The same situation obtains with regard to all the divine attributes. It is this phenomenon - the fact that each individual divine Person has exactly the same amount of power and knowledge, and occupies exactly the same amount of space etc, as the three divine Persons combined - that, I now believe, the DOT points to and signifies. Although the group (the Trinity) contains three Persons (because there are three subjects or 'I's) it contains only one set of infinite divine attributes held equally by all three Persons. Each of the Persons is God, yet because of the fact that each is equal to the three together, they do not amount to a plurality of 'Gods'.
In the past I have used a kind of 'interrogation' method to establish whether or not a purported explanation of the DOT is actually coherent. I would ask a set of questions such as the following:
Did God become incarnate as a human being? (to which the answer should be 'yes')
How many Gods are there? (the answer should, of course, be 'one')
So the one God became incarnate as a human being ('yes')
Is the Father the one God? ('yes')
So the Father is the one God who became incarnate as a human being? ('er... well, yes')
Did the Father become incarnate as a human being? ('no!')
So the one God who became incarnate as a human being did not become incarnate as a human being??
At this point I would consider the Trinity theory in question to be proven illogical and incoherent and therefore clearly not a true reflection of the nature of God. Up until now, no Trinity theory has passed my rigorous interrogation test!
However, I now think that, because it refers to a situation unlike any that is experienced in the finite sphere (in other words, because it is dealing with infinite qualities and quantities) the grammar employed in discussing the DOT should be of a special variety unlike that used in other situations; so the answers to the above questions should actually take something like the following form:
Did God become incarnate as a human being? ('well, one of Him did')
How many Gods are there? ('one, of course!')
So the one God became incarnate as a human being ('like I said, one of Him did') Is the Father the one God? (yes!) So the Father is the one God who became incarnate as a human being? ('He is one of the one God, one of whom became incarnate as a human being') Did the Father become incarnate as a human being? ('no')
The DOT teaches that there are three Persons of the one God, so an expression like 'one of the one God' simply means 'one Person of the one God'. It might seem that we should refer to God (being a combination of three Persons) as an 'it' rather than a 'He', but to me that seems to diminish God by implying that God is a thing whereas a being consisting of three Persons, far from being less than a person is, in fact, 'superpersonal'. I suppose we could use the pronoun 'them', but if the whole purpose of the DOT is to point to the fact that the three Persons, each of whom is God, do not - because of their infinite nature - amount to a plurality of 'Gods', then to refer to God as 'them' would seem to defeat this object. Hence, 'Him' seems the most appropriate pronoun to use. (Of course, I do not see God as male in the human sense, but both Father and Son are male terms and the Son has become incarnate as a human male. I do, however, think there may be a case for referring to the Holy Spirit as 'Her' - not because I think the Spirit is female in the human sense but simply to introduce at least an element of gender balance into our conception of the Godhead).
Now, however, I seem to have arrived at a conception of the DOT which, while it admittedly involves some unusual use of grammar, does seem - to me at any rate - to actually make sense and not involve any heretical conclusions.
The model of the Trinity that I now espouse works like this:
Imagine three people - let's call them Tom, Dick and Harriet. Considered together they make up a group of three human beings. As a group they have roughly three times the strength that each of them has as an individual; for example, if Tom's car were to have a flat battery and need a push start, Tom might not be able, on his own, to push the car very far - but with the help of his friends, Dick and Harriet, he will do a much better job.
A similar situation obtains with regard to knowledge. True, there will be some overlap in terms of what each of them knows, but certainly each of them will know plenty of stuff that the other two don't, so their combined knowledge is much greater than that which each of them possesses as an individual.
Tom, Dick and Harriet probably aren't exactly the same size as each other but, roughly speaking, as a group they will occupy three times the space that each of them occupies as an individual.
A similar ratio of three to one will apply to all other areas of these three people's existence as a group.
The situation with regard to the divine Persons is, however, very different: each of them is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent - therefore the power held by each of the individual Persons is no less than that held by the group as a whole; each Person has no less knowledge than the group and, since they are present everywhere, each Person occupies no less space than the three of them do together. The same situation obtains with regard to all the divine attributes. It is this phenomenon - the fact that each individual divine Person has exactly the same amount of power and knowledge, and occupies exactly the same amount of space etc, as the three divine Persons combined - that, I now believe, the DOT points to and signifies. Although the group (the Trinity) contains three Persons (because there are three subjects or 'I's) it contains only one set of infinite divine attributes held equally by all three Persons. Each of the Persons is God, yet because of the fact that each is equal to the three together, they do not amount to a plurality of 'Gods'.
In the past I have used a kind of 'interrogation' method to establish whether or not a purported explanation of the DOT is actually coherent. I would ask a set of questions such as the following:
Did God become incarnate as a human being? (to which the answer should be 'yes')
How many Gods are there? (the answer should, of course, be 'one')
So the one God became incarnate as a human being ('yes')
Is the Father the one God? ('yes')
So the Father is the one God who became incarnate as a human being? ('er... well, yes')
Did the Father become incarnate as a human being? ('no!')
So the one God who became incarnate as a human being did not become incarnate as a human being??
At this point I would consider the Trinity theory in question to be proven illogical and incoherent and therefore clearly not a true reflection of the nature of God. Up until now, no Trinity theory has passed my rigorous interrogation test!
However, I now think that, because it refers to a situation unlike any that is experienced in the finite sphere (in other words, because it is dealing with infinite qualities and quantities) the grammar employed in discussing the DOT should be of a special variety unlike that used in other situations; so the answers to the above questions should actually take something like the following form:
Did God become incarnate as a human being? ('well, one of Him did')
How many Gods are there? ('one, of course!')
So the one God became incarnate as a human being ('like I said, one of Him did') Is the Father the one God? (yes!) So the Father is the one God who became incarnate as a human being? ('He is one of the one God, one of whom became incarnate as a human being') Did the Father become incarnate as a human being? ('no')
The DOT teaches that there are three Persons of the one God, so an expression like 'one of the one God' simply means 'one Person of the one God'. It might seem that we should refer to God (being a combination of three Persons) as an 'it' rather than a 'He', but to me that seems to diminish God by implying that God is a thing whereas a being consisting of three Persons, far from being less than a person is, in fact, 'superpersonal'. I suppose we could use the pronoun 'them', but if the whole purpose of the DOT is to point to the fact that the three Persons, each of whom is God, do not - because of their infinite nature - amount to a plurality of 'Gods', then to refer to God as 'them' would seem to defeat this object. Hence, 'Him' seems the most appropriate pronoun to use. (Of course, I do not see God as male in the human sense, but both Father and Son are male terms and the Son has become incarnate as a human male. I do, however, think there may be a case for referring to the Holy Spirit as 'Her' - not because I think the Spirit is female in the human sense but simply to introduce at least an element of gender balance into our conception of the Godhead).
Sunday 6 March 2016
Just in case you are interested...
...here are the links for my other blogs:
"Thoughts on What's Afoot" (latitudinous lucubrations and other stray cerebrations).
"Free Armenian Lessons" (short lessons in both Eastern and Western Armenian).
"Andrew's Art" (drawings and paintings including a few home-made greeting cards).
"Thoughts on What's Afoot" (latitudinous lucubrations and other stray cerebrations).
"Free Armenian Lessons" (short lessons in both Eastern and Western Armenian).
"Andrew's Art" (drawings and paintings including a few home-made greeting cards).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)