In yesterday’s Christian Essentials class, we explored the question, “What is the Trinity?”
One point I wanted to emphasize is that the Trinity is not a contradiction. It might sound like “deep philosophy” to say that it’s a contradiction and also say that’s OK, as if it that made it a profound truth. Now, I may be stating the obvious here, but a profound truth must be, well, true, and a contradiction is never true.
If God is true, and the Trinity is true, then we must be able to show that it is not a contradiction. To do this, let me try to make the case that the Trinity is a contradiction and then knock it down. But first, let me offer a working definition of the law of contradiction:
A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.
So here’s an argument against the Trinity. Does it work?
- The Father is God (Matthew 6:9).
- Jesus is God (John 20:28-29).
- The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4).
- Therefore, three are God.
- However, God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4).
- Therefore, the Trinity is a contradiction, because three does not equal one.
Remember that our definition of a contradiction requires that you talk about things “in the same way.” When I said that “three are God” and “God is one,” I was fudging a little bit — I wasn’t using the verbs “are” and “is” in the same way. You should be asking, “three what are God,” and “God is one what?”
From the time of Athanasius, Christians have confessed that God is one in essence, and three persons are (and always have been) God. This means a couple of things:
- The doctrine of the Trinity does not claim that God is both one person and three persons. That would be a contradiction.
- The doctrine of the Trinity does not claim that God is both one essence and three essences. That would be a contradiction.
One divine essence, three distinct persons — that is the orthodox view of the Trinity. Yes, it’s hard to grasp — don’t hurt yourself trying; all analogies fail here and there’s more to the doctrine of the Trinity than the little I’ve addressed here. But even though we don’t understand how it works, we do know that this is God’s revelation of Himself.
And that is a profound truth indeed.
I think this is helpful,
1 + 1 + 1 != 1, however;
1 infinity + 1 infinity + 1 infinity = 1 infinity.
The first was asserted by a Muslim apologist, the second was the answer from the christian. I don’t remember who said it.
Nice try, but I wouldn’t use the infinity equation. The problem is that you don’t add the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together and get God.
The doctrine of the Trinity requires that the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. If it takes addition to get to the fullness of deity, then you run into problems with (for example) Col. 2:9, which establishes that the fullness of deity dwells in Christ.
Like I said… “all analogies fail here.” But we can learn a thing or two by thinking them through to figure out why they fail.
Hugh, how would you answer someone who then presses you to define ‘essence’ as opposed to ‘person’?
(I don’t disagree with your explanation BTW, that just seems a question someone might easily ask)
Understood no analogy is enough, i meant this as more of an interesting apologetic not an explanation.
However, I am not sure if any infinity is not fully infinite, however they may be disassociate sets. I will need to study my doctrine of infinity.
@Larry:
I would say that “essence” addresses what sort of thing God is. To break out the “big words,” it addresses God’s ontological nature — the nature of His being.
Actually, the “essence” part is easier to explain — it’s the use of the word “person” that’s the fuzzier part. The way Wayne Grudem explains it in his Systematic Theology, the word “person” is really just the best word we have available to us to describe “one party in a relationship.”
For example, when you speak in the “first person,” you say “I”. In this sentence, Hugh is referring to himself in the “third person.” Within the Trinity, you must always have interactions with personal distinctions so that there is a first person (I), a second person (You), and a third person (Him).
In this way, the Father can say to the Son, “When You (second person) ascend, I (first person) will send the Holy Spirit (third person).”
If you reduce the complexity so that any of these personal distinctions disappear — if you don’t have an “I,” a “You,” and a “Him” — you have departed from the orthodox Christian view.
@O’Ryan:
My point wasn’t so much with the nature of infinity. Rather, the problem is with the suggestion that God can be thought of as three component parts that need to be added together to get the whole.
But there are other problems that come up when you start trying to do arithmetic with infinites. For starters, see William Lane Craig’s Q&A article on Forming an Actual Infinite by Successive Addition.
Let me be a little cautious and say that while I stand behind my remarks about the “persons” of the Trinity being parties in a relationship, I want to affirm that they are truly distinct persons. While the word “person” is sort of fuzzy, it’s still entirely accurate and proper.
Any church historians care to chime in with some clarification?
That is exactly the problem the Musilm was pointing out. But, if the components are infinate, the sum is infinate.
We could discuss WLC’s article but that would take us off topic.
Wow. This shows what a tough topic the Trinity can be.
The addition of infinities may not be a sound analogy to the Trinity, but I still like the comparison (for the way it is real, yet impossible to actualize in creation). For example, taking the infinite set of all integer numbers and removing the even numbers leaves an infinite set of even numbers and an infinite set of odd numbers. I can see how it is so (and not a contradiction), but I cannot picture it.
It helps me to see how the fact that I cannot picture the Trinity has no bearing on its reality.
OK, I found the Grudem quote that expresses what I was trying to explain with the whole “persons in relationship” thing…