Board index ‹ The Trinity

[Book Mitten]

How does the trinity exist outside the universe? Surely the son, part of the trinity, is defined in part by his sacrifice at the cross? Or am I mistaken?

[jimwalton]

> How does the trinity exist outside the universe? Surely the son, part of the trinity, is defined in part by his sacrifice at the cross? Or am I mistaken?

Dr. Joe Boot (to give proper credit) writes this:

"If God is not the triune Lord revealed in Jesus Christ, then the doctrine of creation is rendered impossible, and man is part of a cosmic chain of being. This is because a monadic conception of God as some kind of singularity leaves us with the emptiness and void of non-personality as ultimate reality. If there is no plurality within God’s being, then there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, but instead only a blank unity. In such a view of God there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Indeed, without an absolute personality, there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all; ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said. This is why the Trinity is so important in tackling the philosophical problem of the one and the many. Moreover, because a denial of the Trinity leads to a denial of an absolute personality, we cannot speak coherently of the will of God. Only persons have a will. But if God has no will, then creation is not the free act of an absolute, personal God. Rather, the universe is the emanation of divine being, and what we call the universe is merely the extension of god, or, as some pagans would say, it is the body of god."

[Book Mitten]

> "If God is not the triune Lord revealed in Jesus Christ, then the doctrine of creation is rendered impossible, and man is part of a cosmic chain of being. This is because a monadic conception of God as some kind of singularity leaves us with the emptiness and void of non-personality as ultimate reality.

This is an interesting quote (including the rest of it, I just thought I'd highlight this particular part).

It still leaves me with questions however.

We seem to agree that there are certain aspects of God that manifest through time, including his responses to phenomena in our world, and our actions. My question(s) would be, "Is there any aspects of any parts of the trinity, particularly the son, that are unchanging? If so, what are they?"

Following from this, I gather that God is at least partly eternal and unchanging, and so exists causally prior to creation. If so, I would assume that on theological grounds, God has thoughts/traits that are independent and separate from the universe, as the universe is said to not be eternal, and is created by God. Again, what would these thoughts etc be? Sorry if I'm retreading ground here. I think there might be some part of understanding I'm missing.

[jimwalton]

> "Is there any aspects of any parts of the trinity, particularly the son, that are unchanging? If so, what are they?"

Yes, the nature of the Trinity is unchanging: one essence who exists in three persons. They are ontologically equal but vary in their principle of action as Father, Son, and Spirit. For instance, as Son He is submissive to the will of the Father, those this is not to be perceived as ontological inferiority. The Father was the Creator, the Son was the agent of creation, and the Spirit had a role as well.

Ontologically, they are all holy, exalted, divine, and eternal. These are all immutable attributes.

> I gather that God is at least partly eternal and unchanging, and so exists causally prior to creation. If so, I would assume that on theological grounds, God has thoughts/traits that are independent and separate from the universe, as the universe is said to not be eternal, and is created by God. Again, what would these thoughts etc be?

Correct.

For instance, Isaiah 55.8-9 says, " 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the L ORD. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.' "

This verse is speaking of the transcendence of YHWH, even though in the ancient Near East, the model for deity was more continuity between the divine and human realms—the gods were like humans, but "better." YHWH is never portrayed that way. In the Bible He is both transcendent (as here) and imminent ("with us").

These verses are sometimes interpreted to mean that God is unknowable (as in Islam). Instead, the text is tell us that God is not like us, not because he is above our knowing, but because he shows mercy (we don't, always) and because his words accomplish what he means them to accomplish (ours don't, always). The whole point of the passage is that we are sinners, and we should turn from our sinful ways and thoughts because those are not of God. He means us to seek him and his mercy, which assumes that he thinks we can know him.

I think one of the main "thoughts" that God has that are independent and separate from the universe and beyond human comprehension is that He has the whole picture of what's going on in history, in our lives, and even in the universe. Practically speaking, we have to speak impractically: He has the entire picture of every element of the universe, along with every aspect of human existence, along with an almost infinite number of potentialities, perpetually processing through his mind. The scope of omniscience is beyond the scope of our comprehension because we think in terms of quantities and quantifiable statistics, databases, probabilities, and the scope of the accumulation of knowledge. To put all of it into one bowl takes us to incomprehensible levels of knowledge and information storage. We end up bowing in worship or scoffing in disbelief.

[Book Mitten]

Alternatively, there are some who suggest that space and time are merely means by which we (humans, and, perhaps, other animals) perceive reality, and are not in fact "things in themselves" so to speak. Perhaps under this view God could create stars, planets and so on in a space time continuum, and such would be called "the universe". I think Ed Feser and others have touched upon this idea. What would be your thoughts on this? I would be interested in how a God in this context could be distinguished from a pantheistic "cosmic consciousness" or "universal thought" for lack of a better phrase. The kind of God Alan Watts and Jung seemed to believe in.

[jimwalton]

It's fun to wrestle with the meaning of reality and what qualifies. "Time" is obviously immaterial, but we have trouble separating it from reality since it is so necessary to our perceptions. With regard to space, scientists can't even define what we mean by "matter," let alone how to define "space." "Dark matter" is still hypothetical, and yet somehow accepted. Classical science and quantum mechanics contradict each other; they can't both be true, and yet they are. The fun never stops. There are scientists who feel that time should be included as a 4th dimension, but hey, some think Pluto should be made a planet again!

> Perhaps under this view God could create stars, planets and so on in a space time continuum, and such would be called "the universe".

But with this statement are you wondering about disregarding anything in the space/time continuum as "real"—not things in themselves?

> I would be interested in how a God in this context could be distinguished from a pantheistic "cosmic consciousness" or "universal thought" for lack of a better phrase.

I believe it was long ago (back in October) that we discussed the theological logic of a pandeist God (I rejected the possibility) and Alan Watts's concepts of cosmic consciousness and universal thought. According to this quote by Joe Boot, which I really liked also, unless there is plurality within God's ontology, reality as we know it could not exist.

[Book Mitten]

> I believe it was long ago (back in October) that we discussed the theological logic of a pandeist God (I rejected the possibility) and Alan Watts's concepts of cosmic consciousness and universal thought. According to this quote by Joe Boot, which I really liked also, unless there is plurality within God's ontology, reality as we know it could not exist.

Sure. I'm not arguing here that pandeism or pantheism is necessarily true. I'm wondering how in the scenario in question the Christian God would be distinguished from pandeism and pantheism. In terms of plurality, I still think pantheism/pandeism could exist as a plurality.

[jimwalton]

The very definition of pantheism is the oneness of all things, and pandeism holds that a creator deity became the universe (pantheism) and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity. How can there be a plurality or a subject/object relationship if there is an ontological oneness of all things including god? It's a classic self-contradiction.

[Book Mitten]

> Instead, the text is tell us that God is not like us, not because he is above our knowing, but because he shows mercy (we don't, always) and because his words accomplish what he means them to accomplish (ours don't, always).

Does God always show mercy? There seem to be some passages which show the contrary. Of course, you could argue for the validity of such responses, but I have my doubts that he is universally merciful and loving, even if he displays those traits on occasion.

> The whole point of the passage is that we are sinners, and we should turn from our sinful ways and thoughts because those are not of God.

Is it possible for us to do so, or better yet to not be sinners in the first place, if we are by metaphysical necessity imperfect in being something inferior to God? If it is not possible, why does God seem to judge as if it was? To demonstrate what I'm getting at, here's a quote from Jonathan Edwards:

"You contribute nothing to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary."

You personally might not be of the same Calvinist persuasion as Edwards, but we did touch upon the notion of a metaphysical lack that might, perhaps exist as an inevitable consequence of something that isn't God.

> I think one of the main "thoughts" that God has that are independent and separate from the universe and beyond human comprehension is that He has the whole picture of what's going on in history, in our lives, and even in the universe. Practically speaking, we have to speak impractically: He has the entire picture of every element of the universe, along with every aspect of human existence, along with an almost infinite number of potentialities, perpetually processing through his mind.

These things still seem tied to our world. The least connected factor in my opinion is potentialities; things that are possible but not always actual in our universe. Aren't these potentialities still contingent upon an already existing reality however? A potential but not actual version of myself for example still has as a metaphysical predicate a conception of human traits, cosmic phenomena, experience, environment and so on.

In other words, potentialities are only separate from the universe in so far as they would more likely exist in a different universe. Thus a universe still seems to be the content of the thoughts in question.

[jimwalton]

> Does God always show mercy?

Mercy is a quality of God, but, like His power, He can choose when to exercise it and to what extent, commensurate with His qualities of justice. God always shows some mercy, though the timing and extent of it pertain to what is just in the particular situation. For instance, every time God does not immediately strike any one of us dead on the spot for various sins and evil we may commit shows the discipline of mercy. The fact that He blesses people with health and food, sending rain whether one is just or unjust, is an act of mercy.

There obviously come times when the time for mercy is over and justice must prevail. For justice to be real it has to be rightly exercised.

> Is it possible for us to do so, or better yet to not be sinners in the first place, if we are by metaphysical necessity imperfect in being something inferior to God?

The idea of sin is separation that shows itself in missing the mark. Inferiority to God was unavoidable. God is eternal, and therefore any created being is not eternal, and therefore, less than God. There is no alternative. But this inferiority was accounted for.

Suppose I sign up for a math class. It's obvious and inevitable that I will know something more at the end of the term than at the beginning. that's the whole point. The teacher is there to bring me from point A to point B. There's nothing "unfair" about the idea that I know less at the beginning of the semester. This was accounted for.

God knew that we were not divine, and so from the very beginning initiated a plan whereby we could be united with Him (instead of separated), forgiven from our sins (instead of enslaved by them), and given a nature suitable for God's presence (instead of the one I was born with). This was all accounted for.

But if I neglect to do my homework, resist the teacher's every equation, or quit the math class, the teacher is not to blame. He knows I need to get from A to B, and the class has been designed to do that. If I buck every effort, my failure is on my shoulders. At that point, it's not justice (or anything positive) for the professor to give me an A anyway. There's no place for mercy here and now, because mercy comes in the course of getting to point B (forgiveness for a missed homework, eliminating 1 question on each exam, giving me extra time, etc.), not to the one who is not there to get to point B. Any sense of fairness has to fail him for the course.

> You personally might not be of the same Calvinist persuasion as Edwards

I am not. I agree that we contribute nothing to our salvation, but I see in the Bible where a response on my part is called for to make the equation balance.

> These things still seem tied to our world.

It's impossible for God to be God if He is nothing but transcendent. It's impossible for God to be involved in our lives if He is not imminent. His deity requires connectivity.

> Aren't these potentialities still contingent upon an already existing reality however?

Yes, absolutely. They can't possibly be potentialities without some connection to an already existing reality. Otherwise we would be entertaining impossibilities and non-existences as being possibilities, a distinct self-contradiction.