Discourse on philosophy and the trinity
Several of the early church
councils dealt with the question of what the Trinity is and how we can attempt
to understand it. I've thought a bit
about the issue because of some discussions I've had with Mormons who believe
that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are three separate Gods. This is a piece of how I responded, and it is
not a Biblical justification for the nature of God as one being (and yet three
persons), but rather a philosophical one:
First a few terms need to be
distinguished:
Logic: A standard independent of human
understanding that involves fundamental principles such as the Law of Identity (A = A) and the Law of
Noncontradictions (A cannot be anything other
than A). Deductive logic is included
under this standard insofar as it is also independent of human deductive power. Note that logic does not include
(necessarily) a fundamental understanding
of facts or reality, it only marks what those facts can be used for.
Reality:
The fact of 'being' and existence divorced from any human element of
fallibility in the senses or any bias of
understanding.
Knowledge:
The product of logic and reality (accurate premises with which to power
logic) is knowledge, and because both
logic and reality are inaccessible to human beings (strictly by these definitions), knowledge is also not
obtainable.
Reason: The human perspective and understanding
of logic: this introduces the human element into the equation and accounts for the mistakes that we
make in understanding the world. The closer 'reason' can be brought to logic,
the better. (I will use the word
'rationality' in the same sense
that I use 'reason')
Perception:
Reality as far as human beings can judge it.
Belief:
The product of human reason and perception and the closest we can come to knowledge.
(I will use the word 'understanding' in the same sense)
A couple of further terms need
defining here simply because of an objection many people make. 'Well doesn't _____ seem like a contradictory
part of God's nature, making him not entirely logical?' My answer to that is these definitions:
Contradiction:
Two statements that logically cannot both be true/exist simultaneously, in reality.
Paradox:
Two statements that seem logically contradictory due to insufficient
information, but are not actually
contradictory.
Some people claim that God is
beyond or above logic, but I am arguing from the position (which I do not have
the space here to justify) that God's nature is itself the basis of logic (in
the same way that it is the basis of morality) and that God cannot violate
either logic or morality because they are a part of His own nature.
It is my position that, since God
is the origin of both revelation and logic, and since God's nature itself is
not contradictory, logic and God's divine revelation are never contradictory.
Philosophy and the problem of
the Trinity
A few identity claims need to be
made first (after a couple of definitions of course). Note that all of these apply to all the
members of the Godhead, whether separate or persons of the same being.
Essence:
The 'what a thing is' at its core.
The conceptual thing aside from its concrete application. The 'that
which it is' aside from the actual material involved in it. Principally defined
in opposition to substance. For
instance, if we were to take a loaf of bread, and replace each individual atom in it one at
a time, at the end of the day we would still have a loaf of bread with the same essence. When applied to concepts, there cannot be two
essences of a thing. There is only one conceptual justice,
with many applications. (Used interchangeably with the word 'nature' i.e. 'God's nature, human nature' etc.)
Substance:
The actual physical representation of that thing. In the loaf of bread example, while the essence would remain the same
if we replaced every atom on the bread, the substance would change, since the substance is literally the
composition of that thing. Substance
doesn't necessarily have to be
material, but it at least includes it, for substance is the concrete pplication of essence.
Now some basic presuppositions
about God, applied to all members of the Godhead.
God is infinite in his attributes
and his being
All the members of the Godhead
have the same properties (not necessarily roles or actions, just properties,
speaking particularly in an ontological, metaphysical sense)
God's nature (essence) defines
morality, ontology, metaphysics, logic, etc.
God is self existent and the
universal definer of what 'existence' means ("I am that I am.")
God is the creator of the
universe (and therefore time)
A number of philosophical
statements based on a simple and logical explanation of these propositions can
be made about the nature and doctrine of the Trinity. The first concerns the infinite:
God
and His infinity
Now, the infinite is a strange
thing, and it is as much the study of philosophy as it is mathematics. One interesting property of the infinite, is
that it is impossible for two simultaneous infinities to exist (with the
same properties), they must always be counted one infinite. Now I understand that this is probably a
confusing idea, so let me try to expound on it a little. The reason for the impossibility of the
simultaneous existence of two infinites of the same properties is that, if we
take, for example, the set of all natural numbers, we cannot then speak of another
set of all natural numbers. If
the infinite set of all natural numbers is truly infinite, then all natural
numbers (and all sets including them) fall into this set. Insofar as infinite sets are identical in
properties, they are one in being.
What must be understood secondly
is this concept of what it means to have the 'same properties.' While this is a little bit of a limiting
factor, we must understand this with great care. What I mean by 'same properties' should be
taken purely in a conceptual/abstract fashion.
For instance, I could count the number of desks in a classroom (say 17),
and then count the number of desks in another classroom (say 17 again). I have two sets of seventeen, but I do not
have two different seventeens: I have two instances of a single concept of
seventeen.
In the same way, I submit that
Jesus and God the Father (and the Holy Spirit) have the same properties (are
conceptually the same on an ontological level, the level of being). Jesus is like God the Father and the Holy
Spirit (possesses the same attributes), as all Christian theology teaches. It is indeed true that Jesus and God and the
Holy Spirit do some different things and that they have different roles
at times, but in terms of their properties (nature), they are the same. There are instances of their acting
differently and separately, but that does not make them separate in being. These are instances of the same God, if I
may.
To review this argument:
1.
Two sets that are infinite sets of the same
properties are actually the same set
2.
God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy
Spirit are infinite
3.
God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy
Spirit have the same properties
4.
God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy
Spirit are members of the same Being (from 1, 2, and 3)
God
and the nature of Nature
If it is God's nature (essence)
that defines morality, then Jesus and God the Father and the Holy Spirit have the
same essence, else we should have conflicting moralities. Human beings are quite different from
this. For instance, you and I have
similar natures (essences) because we are both human. However, our differences are more than just
in our actions and roles. We are said to
be different beings partly because our consciousness is different,
meaning we have different values, knowledge, and feelings. The Godhead, on the other hand, cannot be
differentiated in terms of these things (the question of how God experiences
"I-ness" or selfhood is an interesting one, but I don't have space
here…). The members of the Godhead value
the same things (or morality would be contradictory), they have the same
knowledge (they are all omniscient), and they have the same character (the
notion of feelings cannot be applied to God in quite the same way).
'So what?' you say. 'Maybe they have the same essence. That doesn't make them the same being.'
One particular and crucial thing to understand
about conceptual things with the same essence must be stated. If any two things are conceptually the same,
then insofar as they exist in the abstract they are actually the
same. For instance, there cannot exist
three or four kinds of justice (justice1, justice2,
justice3). Justice can be applied
variously, but it cannot exist variously.
Let us return momentarily to my
example of the 17 desks. In the case of
my counting 17 different desks in two different rooms, the desks themselves are
not the same, but the concept of 17 holds in common singularly
between the two counts. That number of
17 does not exist as two different kinds of 17, there is only one conceptual
17.
So inasmuch as God is immaterial,
He is one being, and in as much as He is substance, He is separate. Well, does God's being, His nature,
His essence, exist in his immateriality, or in his substance? As it happens, essence must be
immaterial. (from the definitions)
To review this argument:
1. Morality
is constant and consistent
2. Morality
is based on God's nature
3. God
has his essence in the immaterial (from the definition of essence)
4. Two
things that have the same essence (if they are conceptual and have their being
in the non-substantial) are actually the same entity
5. God
the Father and God the Son are of a consistent nature, their nature is
synonymous (from 1 and 2)
6. God
the Father and God the Son are the same being, in different substances (from 3,
4, and 5)
God and the nature of existence
One of the (innumerable)
important things about God is the idea of His being self-existent. Before we can move on, we must now what
self-existence means.
Self-existence
(independent existence): An entity possesses self-existence when it is
neither created nor needs any level of
sustenance from another entity or thing.
God's self-existence can be
evidenced by the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. Because this argument is one of the oldest
and strongest that Christianity has produced, I will leave the matter of this
evidence there and move on to the implications of God's self-existence.
Again, the Bible clearly supports
this issue. When God describes Himself
with the statement "I AM that I AM," it is not a random
statement. It is, in fact, a statement
of existence. God is the definer, the Causer
of existence. In that role, He defines
existence. The independently existent
defines the dependently existent, in its being.
This is deeply and
comprehensively attached to the nature of God (and Jesus Christ). Jesus Himself makes the same statement, "Before
Abraham was, I AM." Jesus is also
self-existent (and therefore uncreated).
What are the implications of self-existence? Well, it means (in part) that God defines by
His very person, the law of identity in logic:
A = A. Not only does He make the
concept of A possible "I am that I am" but just as
importantly, he makes the concept of 'is' possible. "I AM that I AM." The law of identity, right there.
One thing we must understand
about the law of identity is that it cannot exist in duplicate.
It doesn't make sense to say that
there are two kinds of 'is' or two kinds of existence. There is one set of all things real, there
cannot be two sets of things real that each consist of all things real and yet
are separate and unique sets. In this
way, since it is impossible for there to be two different kinds of
'equals sign' or two different kinds of 'existence,' it is impossible
that there should be more than one self-existent being or entity. By necessity, then, if God the Father and
Jesus Christ are both self-existent, they must be members of the same
being. Substances of the same
essence. It is as simple as that.
To review this argument:
1. God
is self-existent (source: Himself)
2. Jesus
is self-existent (source: Himself)
3. It
is impossible that the dependently existent defines what it means to 'exist'
(logical identity)
4. The
self-existent defines existence (inverse of 3)
5. God
defines existence (from 1 and 4)
6. Jesus
defines existence (from 2 and 4)
7. It
'is' impossible that there should be more than one kind of existence; things 'are'
or they 'are not' (tautology, there cannot be more than one law of identity
without its being redundant)
8. God
and Jesus could not exist simultaneously if they are separate beings (from 5,
6, and 7)
9. God
and Jesus do exist simultaneously (the Bible)
10. God
and Jesus are the same being (from 8 and 9)
Therefore
it seems to me that Jesus Christ and God the Father are one and the same being. Of course, He exists in three persons: the word Elohim (God in Hebrew) is actually
plural. But the separateness of His
persons is another topic :)
Onward towards the truth,
Luke
Riel
No comments:
Post a Comment