Tag: theology

Some Trinitarian Thoughts

1 John 4:7-8 (ESV)  Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love

Let me start by saying a teacher once told me I had the ability to make difficult concepts easier to understand.  This blog may prove him wrong.

As the title says, this is a blog on Trinitarianism, so you might ask how these specific verses apply.  It’s just the last three words of the passage I’d like to concentrate on, actually: “God is love.”  I’d also like to establish early on that God’s love is perfect: 

1 John 4:18 (ESV):  There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

So, God is love means God is by nature, love.  He’s not just loving but must by nature love.  God is also an infinite being, so His love is infinite, and that love is perfect.  The word for perfect in 1 John 4:18 is teleios and means “complete.”  The Greek word for love in these verses is agape, unconditional love for someone else: man.  Throughout the Bible, God’s love is directed at someone or something.  My point is that love, at least perfect love, requires an object to be loved whether it’s man or righteousness or something else.  Love isn’t love unless it is expressed toward something or someone.

Now, if God is love, is eternal, and prior to creation, was only one person, and was alone, He would not have had an “object” at which to direct His love.  His love would then have been imperfect, so God would have been imperfect at least in His love nature.  But, if there were a second person, the Eternal Word, say, at whom to direct His love, that love would have been more perfect.  “But,” you say, “that only gives us two persons in the godhead,” and you would be right.  We’re seeking perfect/complete love here.  There is another requirement of love we need to include if we want perfect/complete love. That would be the practice of two loving individuals directing their common love at another, a third person.  We see this in a family where parents will say they didn’t know what love was until they had a child.  The communion between parents in their common love for a child, in this case, results in perfect love. 

“But,” you say again, “why not just continue on with a fourth, fifth, sixth, person and so on?”  This isn’t necessary since the common love shared by a first, second, and third person doesn’t require a fourth to be complete.  It only adds objects, not features to perfect love.  Three will make it perfect, and since God is perfect and perfect in love, three is enough.

So, to lay this out logically, it would go something like this:

  1.  God is love.
  2. God’s love nature must be perfect and complete.
  3. For God’s love to be perfect and compete, there must be an object for that love.
  4. Adding one person or object to be loved still leaves open a need to love another together.
  5. Adding that third person completes the perfection of love as it adds a shared communal love of two toward another.
  6. An additional person, a fourth person, does nothing to perfect that love.
  7. Therefore, if God is perfect, efficient, and eternal love He must be three divine persons.

Is the Trinity logical?

     We’ve all heard poor explanations of what the Trinity is and how it can be explained like the egg example: shell, white, and yoke.  As a child, my son had a book explaining the Trinity in a similar manner using an apple: peel, meat, core or seeds.  Both of these explanations make God out to be three parts.  God is a simple being not made of parts, so we need to find a better explanation.  How about this one:

Mary is going to try out for the Rockettes, but when she shows up at Radio City Music hall for the audition, no one is there.  She decides to run through her routine anyway.  When she finishes, she slips into a time machine and goes back in time to one minute before her dance routine began and joins her other self.  They both dance the same routine, and when they’re finished, Mary reenters the time machine again and goes back in time to one minute prior to the start of the dance routine and joins her other selves.

Now, is each of the three dancers the same Mary? Yes, they are all Mary.  Can they be distinct from one another?  Yes they can.  We can have the Mary on the left, Mary on the right, and Mary in the center.  They can communicate with one another, move independently, etc.  So, what we have are three distinct dancers but only one Mary.  This principle can be applied somewhat to God.  We have one God but three distinct persons all sharing the same nature.  Therefore, the statements “God is one God” and “God is three persons” are not contradictory any more than saying “There is one Mary but three dancers.”

Why is this important?

It is sometimes important to present philosophical answers to questions about our beliefs because not everyone will accept direct biblical answers.

Most of what I have presented here is taken from the chapter on the Trinity in An Introduction to Christian Philosophical Theology by Davis and Yang (2020, Zondervan Academic)

Infallibility

2 Tim. 3:16 (ESV)  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I’ve been in a discussion about the infallibility of the Bible this week.  Webster gives three definitions for the word infallible: “1: incapable of error 2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint :certain 3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals.” Traditional and historic Christianity would apply all three to the entire Bible, but I’m mostly going to refer to the New Testament here because I’m much more familiar with the evidence for the infallibility of that than the Old Testament. 

First I’d like to look at the whole idea of a sacred text being fallible.  Fallible is pretty much the opposite of infallible.  Here’s Webster again:  “1: liable to be erroneous 2: capable of making a mistake.” So, a fallible religious text can be in error and is capable of making mistakes in what it has to say.  Let’s look at the philosophical concept for a minute.

If a sacred text is fallible, how would we know which parts to believe?  What if some doctrine expressed in this sacred text is in error, expressed incorrectly?  Fallibility is almost always blamed on the fact fallible man had some hand in its creation.  But, what if this uncertainty applies to a doctrine we hang our hats on?  If we can’t trust the text itself to tell us if that doctrine is true.  We could not include God as the authority.  He can’t be the final authority if fallible man can dilute or misrepresent God’s inspiration. 

So we would need another authority.  Maybe that authority is us.  We could believe what we want to believe is true in the text and reject what we think is untrue.  That would make truth subjective, though, subject to our own belief rather than our belief being subject to the sacred text.

Maybe we would need to turn to a pastor or a prophet to tell us which parts are true and which parts are not, but we would still have fallible man sifting what we agree began with God but was recast.  To be real here, this leads to relativism: truth is subjective, what is true for you may not be true for me.  “I believe something in the text is true but you don’t. Neither view has standing. So, I would conclude there is no way of knowing what a sacred text is saying if we believe fallible man was not just able to alter it but must have altered it.

Evidence

Is there evidence the Bible is accurate in its presentation of God’s leading?  The Bible certainly claims this. In the book of 2 Peter, Peter writes those prophets who came before him were inspired.

2 Peter 1:16-21 (ESV)  For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Another evidence is that we have an exhaustive empirical demonstration of inspiration.  We have 66 ancient documents written over a span of more than 1500 years agreeing with one another, quoting one another in recognition of their divine inspiration, and supporting one another doctrinally, morally, and epistemologically.  I would challenge doubters to find a similar collection of ancient documents which would do the same.

Why is this important?

Ours is not a blind faith.  Our Bible is not a fallible book due to its being passed from God through man to reach us.  The question is often asked, “Couldn’t God protect His Word?”  I think the greater question is “Did He?”  In past blogs I’ve offered evidence of inspiration and of the trustworthyness of our Bible archaeologically , the authenticity of the Old and New Testament. 

We can trust our Bibles to be accurate and inspired.  They are the infallible Word of God not in translation, of course, or in copies of manuscripts, but in their original writing, the autographs.  Trust in the Bible you hold in your hand as an excellent representation of God’s Word to you.

Is our God capable of passing His Word through the hands of man without man corrupting it.  The evidence says “yes!” Ours is a God who could pass His Word through the hands of man infallibly despite the fallibility of man.