(Audio version; "Creed" by: Third Day & Brandon Heath and "This I Believe (The Creed)" by: Hillsong)
Introduction
In Part One of our lesson on
Defending The Trinity, we looked at the how belief in the Trinity is a critical
component in the belief structure of orthodox Christianity. We also looked at
how the advent of Jesus Christ, while providing the means for our salvation,
presented us with a problem: If we confess that Jesus is fully divine, how do
we reconcile our understanding of God’s revelation of Himself in the New
Testament with Jewish monotheism in the Old Testament?
We looked at how the Modalistic Formulation attempted to
explain God’s revelation of Himself as God the Father in the Old Testament, God
the Son during Jesus’ earthly ministry, and God the Spirit after Pentecost.
However, we noted that the Modalistic Formulation falls apart at Jesus’ baptism
when the Father spoke, the Son was baptized, and the Spirit descended like a
dove.
We then looked at the proposal
advanced by Arius, bishop of Alexandria. Arius advanced the idea that there was
a time when Jesus and the Spirit did not exist. Although Arianism gained some
popularity during the 4th century, it would eventually be rejected
by the church as heretical given the clear biblical evidence contradicting its
claims. Specifically, Jesus’ own words in John 15:7 reveal that Jesus existed
with the Father from the very beginning. And the opening text of John’s gospel
should remove all doubt that Jesus was not created when He says, “in the beginning
the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been
made (Jn 1:1-3).” There are of course countless other biblical texts that serve
to demonstrate the fallacy of Arianism. Nevertheless, demonstrating how others
are wrong is not sufficient to advance a biblical alternative.
Consequently, we looked at the
orthodox formulation of the Trinity as advanced by The Capadoccians, Basil and
Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. They advanced the theological
formulation of the Trinity that was eventually adopted by church and orthodox
Christianity to this day. They made the crucial distinction between “essence” (ousia) and “persons” (hypostaseis). “By ousia they meant one invisible, divine nature, and by hypostaseis they meant mode of being or
personal center with independent existence and unique characteristics.”[1]
God’s essence or ousia is undivided.
In other words, all three persons are equally God. The differences in the
persons or hypostaseis are functional
or relational as opposed to essential.
The Defense
The church council convened in A.D. 325 at Nicea to address
the issue of Jesus’ divinity once and for all and developed a formal church
position that was used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council
of Constantinople in A.D. 381. Nevertheless, countless treatises and tomes have
been written in an attempt to unravel the difficulties associated with the
doctrine of the Trinity and 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 explicitly identified in the Bible.
However, this can be easily refuted using numerous arguments. For example, “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.”[2]
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—present everywhere at once, Omnipotence—all powerful, and
Omniscience—all knowing. 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.”
“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.”[3]
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)—all actions that support His ongoing divine nature.
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. Jesus’ omniscience like His omnipotence is masked by his humanity.
“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.”[4]
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 to accept God apart
from the laws of nature. However, since God is the creator of all things, it
necessarily exempts Him from being bound by the laws of nature. “Since, if
there is a God, there exists a being with the power to set aside the laws of
nature that he normally sustains.”[5]
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 used by former President Clinton when asked about the
adulterous relationship he had with an intern while he was a sitting President,
“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. “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.”[6]
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. “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…The 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.
[1] Gordon
R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative
Theology, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996) p. 256.
[2] Thomas
C. Oden, The Living God,
(HarperSanFrancisco, New York, NY, 1987), p. 209.
[3] Michael
J. Murray, ed., Reason for the Hope
Within, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1999) pp.
250-251.
[4] Ibid.,
p. 252
[5] Richard
Swinburne, The Existence of God,
(Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2004), p. 284.
[6] Murray, Reason for the Hope Within, p. 255.
[7] Ibid.,
p. 258
No comments:
Post a Comment