Defending the Trinity (Pt. 2)

Let me begin by apologizing for the length of this particular posting but I won't be posting next week and I didn't want to leave without ample reading material.

Part Two

            In Part One, we identified “The Problem” and established some very important historical context, Part Two will begin “The Defense.”

The Defense

Notwithstanding the countless treatises and tomes written in an attempt to unravel the difficulties associated with the doctrine of the Trinity, there is still considerable confusion and dissent about this very important Christian doctrine. But what are some of the more common arguments against Trinitarian belief and how can we, as orthodox Christians, defend our belief in the Trinity?

Argument #1

If the Trinity is such a critical teaching to orthodox Christianity, why is there no explicit mention of it anywhere in Scripture?

Defense #1

This argument sets up the straw man that the only biblical teaching that is valid is a teaching that is explicit. However, this can be easily refuted using numerous arguments. For example, Thomas Oden in The Living God writes, “To require of the New Testament writers that they should have fully answered questions that would not be posed until over a century later is unreasonable.”[1] Although a very strong argument can be made about the implicit teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity from both the Old and New Testaments, one must keep in mind the first rule of biblical interpretation; The Bible was written a long time ago to people from a different culture who lived far away and spoke a different language. Equally important was the intent of the author. Although all Scripture is useful for teaching, the various authors certainly did not intend to teach all things explicitly. That doesn’t mean, however, that we cannot combine the various elements presented in the Bible to develop a better understanding of God’s revelation of himself. An analogy serves to illustrate this point. We know explicitly or intuitively that each individual science textbook is not intended to exhaustively teach everything about science. However, when we use the information we glean from each textbook, we are more likely to be able to develop complex scientific theories that are not necessarily explicit in any one textbook yet are nevertheless coherent and supportable theories.

Argument #2

Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God. If Jesus is not God then there is no Trinity.

Defense #2

Like the first argument, this is an argument from silence. Proponents of this argument mistakenly insist that because Jesus didn’t make a clear public pronouncement that he was God that therefore he wasn’t. However, a closer look at Scripture will reveal that Jesus made it very clear that he was God without making an overt public announcement to that effect. In fact, Jesus made it so clear that the religious leaders sought to stone him on numerous occasions and eventually found him guilty of such claims and had him nailed to a cross. In an encounter with religious leaders, Jesus is threatened with stoning as John writes, “Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me? We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’” (Jn. 10:31-33) Ultimately, however, at his trial before the religious leaders, Jesus was asked specifically, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” To which he replied, “I am.” (Mk. 14:61-62) As a result, they sentenced him to death. Clearly, even though Jesus didn’t make it a habit to announce that he was God, that is, in fact, what he and his followers believed him to be and those who conspired in his execution believed he was claiming to be. As a result, because Scripture teaches that Jesus is God, there is an obvious need to address the plurality of God created thereby.

Argument #2a

I have identified this as “Argument 2a” because of its close association with the question of Jesus’ divinity discussed in Argument 2 above. This argument introduces some complexities that this writing will not attempt to fully explain or defend. Again, although it is not the intention to herein defend the divinity of Jesus necessarily, it is precisely the issue of Jesus’ divinity that has forced Christians from the time of Nicea (A. D. 325) until now to defend the Trinity. Specifically at issue in this argument are the apparent incoherencies between Jesus as both fully man and fully God. This issue impacts the argument of the Trinity in this respect: If it can be demonstrated that Jesus as fully God and fully man is logically incoherent, then Jesus probably wasn’t both and based on some of the more troubling inconsistencies, it appears that he probably wasn’t God. The argument hinges on what is assumed as God’s “essential” qualities. For the purposes of this argument, we will consider three such qualities (although there are countless others); Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience. These three qualities have been identified because it would seem that Jesus did not possess these qualities identified as essential to being God. The heart of the argument, therefore, would insist that if Jesus did not contain these essential qualities then he could not be God.

Defense #2a

First, it is useless to deny that Jesus did not appear to be omnipotent—he did not do everything, he did not appear to be omnipresent—he only appeared in one place at any given time and finally he did not appear to be omniscient—he did not know everything. Scripture leaves little doubt about these matters. However, what Scripture fails to disclose is why and to what extent Jesus lacked (if at all) any or all of these essential qualities. Jesus’ omnipotence and omnipresence, or lack thereof, can be explained relatively easily as a self-limitation. Specifically, just because Jesus could do anything doesn’t necessarily require him to do so. Furthermore, just because Jesus could be everywhere at once didn’t necessitate him to do so. Not doing everything or being everywhere at once doesn’t necessarily conclude an inability to do so only an unwillingness to do so at all times. In other words, the essential qualities of being omnipotent and omnipresent can be self-limited without being lost as essential qualities. Consequently, Although Jesus’ limitations in these particular areas are perhaps troubling at times, it does not necessarily disqualify him from divinity. Omniscience, however, is another matter altogether. It is one thing to voluntarily refrain from doing something you have the ability to do, it is quite another to voluntarily stop knowing something that you know. This is the problem we face when dealing with Jesus’ omniscience, or lack thereof. It is clear from Scripture that Jesus does not know everything. For example, Mark 13:32 records Jesus’ response to the disciples’ inquiry about the Second Coming when he says “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Another example would be Jesus’ prayer to the Father at Gethsemane when he says, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” (Matt. 26:39) Certainly if Jesus were omniscient, he would know what other possibilities would be available for redemption. Interestingly, however, Jesus asked this question because he knew the gruesome task that lay before him. In any event, it would certainly appear that Jesus didn’t know everything as would be expected of God. Nevertheless, there are two plausible theories that have been advanced that may shed some light on the matter.

Kenoticism

This theory is from the Greek word kenosis meaning “emptying.” The kenotic tradition in large part derives its authority from Philippians 2:5-11 where it states;

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Thomas Senor writes in Reason for the Hope Within, “A kenotic theology would handle the tricky matters we are now considering by maintaining that the preexistent second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, gave up his position and certain features of divine existence in order to take on humanity. Among those things he emptied himself of was his omniscience.”[2] It is important to remember that Christ did not empty himself of his divinity. Instead, he set aside the independent use of his divine attributes when necessary to accomplish the Father’s will of redemption for humanity. Still, Christ foretold the future (Matt. 26:34), he healed those who were sick and lame (John 5:2-14), he gave sight to the blind (John 9:1-12), he raised the dead (John 11:41-44), and walked on water (Mark 6:45-52).

Two-Minds

A second theory advanced with respect to Jesus’ omniscience is the idea that Jesus possessed two minds—one divine and one human. Jesus’ divine mind was omniscient while his human mind was limited to what was common among humanity. Senor explains that Jesus’ omniscience like his omnipotence is masked by his humanity. He writes,

“Just as contemporary psychology suggests that much of what goes on in the human mind goes on below the conscious surface, one might suppose that taking on humanity required Christ’s consciousness to be similar to ours but that below the conscious surface there existed the omniscient mind of God. Of course, this wouldn’t mean that Jesus was limited to only the contents of his human mind. For God the Father could have chosen to allow the earthly mind to have more or less access to the contents of the divine mind, as might be necessary for completion of his ministry on earth.”[3]

That last sentence would seem to explain why Jesus knew some things but not others. For example, Matthew records an event at the beginning of Holy Week where he writes, “Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, ‘Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.’" (Matt. 21:1-3)

Certainly, both of these explanations come with their own difficulties. However, the goal has not been to resolve, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the issue of Jesus’ omniscience, it has been to advance plausible explanations to counter the arguments against Jesus’ divinity advanced by those who seek to discredit Christianity generally and the doctrine of the Trinity specifically on the basis of Jesus’ omniscience or lack thereof.

Argument #3

Christian’s must fall on the sword of “mystery” in order to accept the Trinity.

Defense #3

            First of all, just because something is considered a mystery doesn’t automatically make it untrue or illogical. Furthermore, a mystery is something that is unknown not something unknowable. There are countless crimes and natural events whose consequences are readily observable but whose causes and/or forces remain a mystery. We may have extensive knowledge about individual aspects of such mysteries yet the ultimate cause is nonetheless a mystery. These mysteries are not untrue or illogical—just unknown. This is the case with the Trinity. We understand God’s unity and his plurality but we’re not quite sure how they fit together because nothing in nature is perfectly analogous. Nevertheless, that does not, in and of itself, make it untrue or illogical—just mysterious.

Argument #4

            The Trinity is a pagan belief system.

Defense #4

            Interestingly, if God existed as a Trinity from eternity past then the Trinity pre-dates any pagan practices. However, that argument may be somewhat circular because it assumes the existence of the Trinity. More importantly, however, any pagan practices resembling Trinitarian theology prior to and after Christianity were/are generally tri-theistic—having three distinct gods ruling separately with separate wills. This is not the Christian construct of Trinitarian thought. Instead, the Trinity consists of one God in essence and three persons within the one Godhead. There is no distinction in the essence or will of the persons of the Godhead. Consequently, Trinitarian theology is monotheistic as opposed to the tri-theism of pagan cultures.

Argument #5

            God as three and one contradicts the laws of nature and math.

Defense #5

With respect to the laws of nature, if natural events are our only relevant background knowledge then it is difficult accept God apart from the laws of nature. However, since God is the creator of all things, that necessarily exempts him from being bound by the laws of nature. Richard Swinburne in his book The Existence of God writes, “[S]ince, if there is a God, there exists a being with the power to set aside the laws of nature that he normally sustains.”[4] That’s not to say that God never works within the bounds of nature, but his miracles testify to the fact that he is not constrained to work within those laws.

With respect to contradicting the laws of math, the difficulty here is a bit more complex but is ultimately a matter of grammar and not a matter of math. It seems clear based on the principle of transitivity that if we say A=B and B=C then A=C. Critics of the Trinity apply this same principle to the Trinity to demonstrate its logical inconsistency. The argument goes something like this: If Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God then it follows that Jesus is the Father or the Father is the Holy Spirit or Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Of course this is a logical absurdity and it naturally follows that the three cannot be the same thing and yet different. However, it is at this point that the argument moves from math to grammar. Specifically at issue is the easily overlooked word “is.” The now infamous phrase “It depends on your definition of ‘is’” is precisely the key to overcoming this seemingly insurmountable obstacle to understanding the three-in-oneness of God. Grammatically, “is” can either be used as one of identity or as one of predication. With respect to a statement using the “is” of identity, what is to the left of the “is” is identical to what is to the right of the “is.” For example, N. W. Clerk is C. S. Lewis uses the “is” of identity because what is to the left and right of the “is” are different names for the identical person. When using the “is” of predication, what is to the right of the “is” describes something about what is to the left of the “is.” For example, Joe is human and Laura is human describe something about both Joe and Laura but it does not then follow that Joe is Laura. Thomas Senor writes, “So the first point of clarification that the Christian apologist will make is to note that the relevant sentences (i.e., The Father is God, The Son is God, and The Holy Spirit is God) do not, as one might have first thought, include the ‘is’ of identity but merely the ‘is’ of predication. Another way of stating our trinitarian triad is The Father is divine, The Son is divine, The Holy Spirit is divine.”[5] Although this understanding resolves the issue of how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same, we must be careful to avoid the pitfall of tri-theism (three gods). As such, we must demonstrate the unification of the three. In other words, in what way are the three the same. Senor writes, “The relationship between the Father and the Son is said to be one of eternal generation. Eternal because there is no temporal priority; the Father did not exist before the Son. Each is coeternal. Generation…Historically, the use of this term was to insist that the Son is the same kind of being (i.e. divine) as the Father…The Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and the Son, once again to insist that the Spirit, like the Father and the Son, is eternal and divine.”[6] Senor continues, “[T]he Father, Son, and Spirit are ontologically united. The existence of any of these persons is logically sufficient for the existence of all three…it is simply not possible for one of the three to exist independently from the other two.”[7]

By combining the elements of the three distinctive persons of God—God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit—with the ontological unity of their divine essence, we begin to see a little more clearly the three-in-oneness of God.

In Part Three, we'll take a close look at some of the most important evidence in our defense of the Trinity-What does the Bible tell us?

---

[1] Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, NY, 1987), p. 209.

[2] Michael J. Murray, ed., Reason for the Hope Within, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1999) pp. 250-251.

[3] Ibid., p. 252

[4] Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2004), p. 284.

[5] Murray, Reason for the Hope Within, p. 255.

[6] Ibid., p. 258

[7] Ibid.