Board index ‹ The Trinity

[Book Mitten]

Perhaps we're working with different definitions. I define pantheism as the identification of divinity, or, God, with the universe. It's a less anthropomorphic conception, but leaves room for an idea of divinity. It could also be conceived of as an irreducible whole, that includes a plurality as a defining characteristic of the whole. Irreducible because a plurality is not reducible to one particular atom, metaphorically. The same way an ecosystem is a whole that has a plurality of different elements, (different plants, animals, etc) as a defining characteristic.

[jimwalton]

> I define pantheism as the identification of divinity, or, God, with the universe.

Then you'd have to define what you mean by "identification" and how that works. It seems, if I may, you believe in the oneness of all things that aren't one at all: singular and plural at the same time.

I'm not being smart alecky, but that sounds very close to Trinitarian theology to me. The difference in your concept would be that within this singularity (an irreducible essence of things) you have a plurality (actually distinct organisms in an ecosystem, for instance: a singular ontology characterized by the interaction of distinct though mutually-dependent elements.

Again, it smells like the same concepts of Trinitarian theology to me: God is one essence (principle of ontology) but exists in 3 persons (principle of activity).

Maybe you can help me understand (1) where I have misunderstood you, and (2) why, if this is your worldview of the universe, you reject Trinitarianism.

[Book Mitten]

> I'm not being smart alecky, but that sounds very close to Trinitarian theology to me.

I wouldn't have assumed you were being smart alecky, don't worry. It's actually a good question. My reasons for doubt concerning the trinity is in part claims made that the trinity is an eternal form, (a little like what Plato depicted in talking about firms) but at the same time the son seems to have an essence only manifest in history. Likewise the father seems to have traits entirely tied to creation, not outside it. I have other reasons, but we'll focus on the aforementioned for now.

> The difference in your concept would be that within this singularity (an irreducible essence of things) you have a plurality (actually distinct organisms in an ecosystem, for instance: a singular ontology characterized by the interaction of distinct though mutually-dependent elements.

Depends what you're referring to as the singularity. Do you mean the singularity that people refer to as the starting point of the universe? Or do you mean singularity in the sense of a "singular body" of things, or something similar?

[jimwalton]

> at the same time the son seems to have an essence only manifest in history

The Son is identified several times in the NT as the agent of creation (Jn. 1.3; Heb. 1.2; Col. 1.16), so he has actions (the principle of action, as I've mentioned before) before history. Since He was the agent of creation, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate that He had other "duties" as well. And certainly after His resurrection and ascension, one of His "actions" is to mediate for humanity before the throne of God (1 Tim. 2.5; Heb. 9.15; et al.). So we know He has an "essence" manifest outside of history as well as the one in history.

> Depends what you're referring to as the singularity.

I meant "B": the singularity in the sense of a "singular body" of things; that's what I was talking about.

[Book Mitten]

> I meant "B": the singularity in the sense of a "singular body" of things; that's what I was talking about.

I see. When I refer to our state of affairs in those terms, generally I'm talking about a developed state of our universe, where there is a space for consciousness to develop, and things for there to be conscious of.

> it's not unreasonable to extrapolate that He had other "duties" as well. And certainly after His resurrection and ascension, one of His "actions" is to mediate for humanity before the throne of God

I might be wrong, but it seems that this act of mediating is parallel, not prior to, the universe.

> The Son is identified several times in the NT as the agent of creation (Jn. 1.3; Heb. 1.2; Col. 1.16), so he has actions (the principle of action, as I've mentioned before) before history. Since He was the agent of creation, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate that He had other "duties" as well.

How is this agency carried out? Do thoughts spontaneously come into the son's head? I think it's possible such would imply an ephemeral state of consciousness more like our own than anything eternal. In addition, if the son is an unchanging part of the trinity, is his status at the atonement, of being crucified, in any way viewed as eternal as well?

[jimwalton]

> it seems that this act of mediating is parallel, not prior to, the universe.

His work of mediation began only after His resurrection and ascension.

1. He serves as the bridge that allows man to communicate with God.
2. He is the mediator because His death on the cross paid for the sins of God's people and gives them access to God's presence. This is the only way that sinners could hope to stand before a holy God.
3. He is the mediator because He intercedes for His people before God as judge (Rom. 8.34).
4. He is the mediator in fulfillment of the OT theocratic offices of prophet, priest, and king. All of these offices were in a sense mediatorial, but the human officeholders could never fully accomplish what the offices where intended to do. Jesus fully accomplished what those offices were about.

> How is this agency [of creation] carried out?

Jesus is the one through whom the Father reveals Himself, and He is the one who does His Father’s will. The Father was the source and the Son was the executor. Like everything else, it was a partnership of essence and action.

> Do thoughts spontaneously come into the son's head?

Since the Son is of one essence with the Father, any thoughts that come to His head would simultaneously be int he Father's head as well. There is a principle in Quantum Mechanics known as superposition, where a particle is able to exist in more than one place at the same time. It's this same type of concept in the Trinity.

> I think it's possible such would imply an ephemeral state of consciousness more like our own than anything eternal.

I don't understand why a thought coming to the Son's head would negate His eternity. You'll need to elaborate and explain.

> if the son is an unchanging part of the trinity, is his status at the atonement, of being crucified, in any way viewed as eternal as well?

1 Peter 1.20 says that it was known by the Godhead before creation that Jesus would be the "lamb" marked out for sacrifice (crucified as an atonement). Rev. 13.8 expresses the same thought. His redemptive sacrifice was a settled plan before creation. The atonement was the plan of God before "history," but was effected in time and space. It had to play itself out within the confines of time. This verse does not mean that the Son was killed before the world was created; He was crucified at one specific point in human time, long after the creation. Yet for God that point in time was a present reality, and also a reality when God created the world.

[Book Mitten]

> 1 Peter 1.20 says that it was known by the Godhead before creation that Jesus would be the "lamb" marked out for sacrifice (crucified as an atonement). Rev. 13.8 expresses the same thought. His redemptive sacrifice was a settled plan before creation. The atonement was the plan of God before "history," but was effected in time and space. It had to play itself out within the confines of time. This verse does not mean that the Son was killed before the world was created; He was crucified at one specific point in human time, long after the creation. Yet for God that point in time was a present reality, and also a reality when God created the world.

This seems to necessitate a state of affairs in which there is sin to be atoned for. It seems a fatalistic picture. If it was as you say a settled plan before creation, doesn't this mean sin is unavoidable?

> I don't understand why a thought coming to the Son's head would negate His eternity. You'll need to elaborate and explain.

There is a point when the thought is not in his head, then there is a point when there is. This implies change and ephemeral/non eternal characteristics.

> Since the Son is of one essence with the Father, any thoughts that come to His head would simultaneously be int he Father's head as well. There is a principle in Quantum Mechanics known as superposition, where a particle is able to exist in more than one place at the same time. It's this same type of concept in the Trinity.

That's fine, but following from my point above, the "coming into being" implies a non eternal nature (it has a beginning and end) that seems at odds with God being eternal.

[jimwalton]

> This seems to necessitate a state of affairs in which there is sin to be atoned for. It seems a fatalistic picture. If it was as you say a settled plan before creation, doesn't this mean sin is unavoidable?

Not necessarily a present or ever-existing state of affairs, but a knowledge of a future condition. I have knowledge even now (and I'm not even omniscient!) that there will be many losers in the March madness basketball tournament. This is neither a fatalistic picture nor a plan, but the nature of the beast. In the end, there will be one winner and many losers. In a tournament with this setup and nature, it is the inevitable outcome.

So was sin unavoidable? Yes. Anything created cannot have the same attributes as that which is uncreated. Therefore anything created is less than that which is uncreated. We were so susceptible to flaw, despite our nobility, that eventual sin was in the cards.

> There is a point when the thought is not in his head, then there is a point when there is. This implies change and ephemeral/non eternal characteristics.

Omniscience is tricky to pin down (just as is omnipotence) without loopholes, so we do the best we can. When we say that God is omniscient, we are undeniably talking about all things that are proper objects of knowledge. For instance, God doesn't know what it's like to learn, he doesn't know what it's like not to know everything, he doesn't know what would happen if an unstoppable force met an immoveable wall. These are absurdities. By omniscience we mean that God knows himself and all other things, whether they are past, present, or future, and he knows them exhaustively and to both extents of eternity. Such knowledge cannot come about through reasoning, process, empiricism, induction or deduction, and it certainly doesn't embrace the absurd, the impossible, or the self-contradictory.

To complicate the problem of defining omniscience, it can't be established what knowledge really is and how it all works. What are the principle grounds of knowledge, and particularly of God's knowledge? Does he evaluate propositions? Does he perceive? What about intuitions, reasoning, logic, and creativity? We consider knowledge to be the result of neurobiological events, but what is it for God?

But let's continue on to the true issue at hand: Is an omniscient being capable of thought? Of course he is, because thoughts are more than just knowledge, and they are more than just evaluating propositions, and the Bible defines God's mind as...

• creating new information (Isa. 40-48)
• showing comprehension
• gaining new information (Gn. 22.12, but it's not new knowledge)
• He orders the cosmos (Gn. 1)
• He designs (viz., the plan for the temple)
• He deliberates (Hos. 11.8)
• He can reason with people (the whole book of Malachi; Gn. 18.17-33)
• He can change a course of action (Ex. 32; 1 Sam. 8-12)
• He remembers (all over the place)

None of these conditions negates His omniscience.

Is God's omniscience propositional or non-propositional? Can God have beliefs (since beliefs can be true, and beliefs are different than knowledge)? Are God's beliefs occurrent or dispositional? As you can see, this can all get pretty deep pretty quickly. At root, a cognitive faculty is simply a particular ability to know something, and since God knows everything, his cognitive faculties are both complete and operational. Perhaps we can define God's omniscience as:

• Having knowledge of all true propositions and having no false beliefs
• Having knowledge that is not surpassed or surpassable

So I would say that generation of thoughts is not a process that invalidates His omniscience. If God is going to be responsive to human free will, which the Bible indicates He is (Jer. 18.1-12, Jonah 3), then thought does not imply a change of divine characteristics or a negation of His timelessness.

[Book Mitten]

> gaining new information (Gn. 22.12, but it's not new knowledge)

Could you explain? How is gaining new information not a form of knowledge?

> Not necessarily a present or ever-existing state of affairs, but a knowledge of a future condition. I have knowledge even now (and I'm not even omniscient!) that there will be many losers in the March madness basketball tournament. This is neither a fatalistic picture nor a plan, but the nature of the beast. In the end, there will be one winner and many losers. In a tournament with this setup and nature, it is the inevitable outcome.

A few points here. One is that a basketball game does not have the same existential/moral weight of some things in the rest of the world. Another is that the game is itself partly fatalistic in so far as there are winners and losers. Who those losers may be are unclear from our perspective, but if God designs it all, he knows who has which mindset and traits, and therefore, presumably, who will lose.

[jimwalton]

> Could you explain? How is gaining new information not a form of knowledge?

It is a form of knowledge, but it's not new knowledge. Suppose I know you love love Love LOVE chocolate. Suppose I know you order chocolate dessert every time. EVERY TIME. If we were to go out to dinner, when the dessert menu is circulated, I know what you're going to order. I have that knowledge. But when you order it, my knowledge was affirmed, and yet at the same time this is something new. In the linearity of time, I have gained new information that adds nothing to the knowledge I already had. I just watched it play out.

In God's economy, assuming He sees all time as "present," He knows all (omniscience). And yet simultaneously time is playing itself out linearly, and events must actually take place in our time/space spectrum for God to gain the "new" information that it's just as He foresaw it.

> One is that a basketball game does not have the same existential/moral weight of some things in the rest of the world.

Of course not. It's just an analogy to show that foreknowledge isn't necessarily fatalistic.

> Another is that the game is itself partly fatalistic in so far as there are winners and losers.

Correct. If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. It is also possible to win it. That's not what "fatalism" means. Instead, fatalism, as you know, is predetermined inevitability. That only happens in sports when the game is rigged. But the fact that most will be losers in March Madness is not cruel, but instead is the only mechanism to determine a winner. It's only an illustration, though. Regarding God's omniscience, his omniscience is not determinative. Knowledge has no causative force; only power has causative force.

> but if God designs it all, he knows who has which mindset and traits, and therefore, presumably, who will lose.

God has not designed it all. Jer. 18.1-12 is one of many clear places to explain that. Losers can win, winners can lose, the first might end up last and the last can be first.