Response to Muslim review of Trinity
So two Muslim gentlemen reviewed a video on the Trinity here, and I wanted to respond to some of the concerns they raised. Also, just to note ahead of time, I'm not an expert theologian or anything, just a laymen (or, if you prefer, hobbyist) who enjoys thinking about these things, so I'm more liable to err than an expert and there are probably those who can put these things more clearly, so take that as you will, but in any case, here's my response:
(I should also note that we don't typically use the word 'species' to talk about these things, since that is related to the ancient genus-differentia way of defining things, and God is typically taken to be undefinable in that paradigm of definition. This is because his essence is held to be infinite in being, and such definition sets down the limits that make a given essence finite (i.e. it is a 'de-finite-tion'), and so inherently excludes any infinite essence from being a subject of this sort of definition.
That said, God is not unique in being undefinable in that paradigm: other things which can be called 'infinite' in being, as well as being itself, the transcendentals (the True, the Good, The One, Thinghood, The Other, etc.) the highest genera (Substance and the 9 accidents, in Aristotle), and particular individuals and groups (the elements of the extensions of terms) are also undefinable in that paradigm of definition.
In any case, I'm somewhat stretching the notion of 'species' here, it's analogous to how it's used in the genus-differentia paradigm, but not quite identical. I explain more bellow in the paragraph beginning with 'it might help'.)
In any case, the logic of the Trinity is akin to the logic of how three passengers (one on one flight, one on second flight, an another on a thrid flight) can count as thee passengers even though they are one and the same man, namely because the airline (for it's purposes) doesn't need to track who are their passengers between flights, merely who is what passenger for any given flight; and so will count one and the same person as three distinct passangers, due to their in fact being two distinct passengers, one each time for three distinct flights.
So likewise there are three persons in the Trinity, but only one God, because (regarding the inner logic of the case) Godhood is to the persons in the case of the Trinity, as personhood is to passangerhood in the case of the above example. i.e. Just as the three passengers are not members of one species 'person', but rather, three members of the one species, 'passanger' and one member of the one species 'person'; so the three persons are not members of the one species 'God' but rather three members of the one species, 'person', and one member of the one species 'God'.
The strictly logical point here is that the way we count being can be one in one way, and many in another way; because what is one under one species, may many under another species, which goes to show that being can exist under many species, and can be one in one species and many in another species, even though being is the same across species, and so also, across quantities. Thus the persons on the flight exists in two species: personhood and passangerhood; and the person is one in personhood but many in passangerhood, so that the many passengers are all one person; so likewise God exists in two species; Godhood and personhood; and he is one in Godhood, but many in personhood. So that the many persons are all one God.
It might help to remember that etymologically, 'species' comes form the same word that 'spectate' and 'spectacle' come from i.e. it comes from a word dealing with sight, thus it also has the same root as 'aspect' i.e. a certain way a thing seen presents itself to our sight, so in logic we are speaking not primarily of the sight of the senses, but the sight of the intellect or reason, and so a thing can present itself in many ways to our intellect's sight, so that we can metaphorically 'see' it in that way rather than another; these various 'ways' a thing presents itself are metaphysically real, they are not merely ways we are seeing, but a way of it's being, namely, a way of it's being present, and in particular, it's being present to us and our intellect, but there is no contradiction in this because ancient logicians allowed for such oddity; thus Aristotle did not say that something cannot both be and not be, period; but rather qualified the law of contradiction, saying that something cannot both be and not be 'at the same time and in the same way' (since he was dealing with sophist he also added something like 'and all other relevant qualifications being equal' not quite in those words, but the point is the qualification was to let him get ahead of people playing word games rather than engaging in serious philosophical reflection) thus God may both be one and not be one at the same time, but not 'in the same way', for he is one in one way, namely regarding his divinity, and he is not one but three in another way, namely regarding his personhood, and these two 'ways' of God's being, these two 'species' under which he is present to our mind's through his divine revelation, are in turn the species under which we know God and, to the limited extent we can, the species through which we delve ever more deeply into the infinite depth and inexhaustible mystery of his supreme being.
The Logic of the Trinity
The three persons of the Trinity are not three members of one species, where the species is God, because we do not count them as being 3 gods, but only as one God. i.e. we are saying that with respect to the species 'God' the three persons of the Trinity are numerically identical, and are only '3' regarding the species 'person'(I should also note that we don't typically use the word 'species' to talk about these things, since that is related to the ancient genus-differentia way of defining things, and God is typically taken to be undefinable in that paradigm of definition. This is because his essence is held to be infinite in being, and such definition sets down the limits that make a given essence finite (i.e. it is a 'de-finite-tion'), and so inherently excludes any infinite essence from being a subject of this sort of definition.
That said, God is not unique in being undefinable in that paradigm: other things which can be called 'infinite' in being, as well as being itself, the transcendentals (the True, the Good, The One, Thinghood, The Other, etc.) the highest genera (Substance and the 9 accidents, in Aristotle), and particular individuals and groups (the elements of the extensions of terms) are also undefinable in that paradigm of definition.
In any case, I'm somewhat stretching the notion of 'species' here, it's analogous to how it's used in the genus-differentia paradigm, but not quite identical. I explain more bellow in the paragraph beginning with 'it might help'.)
In any case, the logic of the Trinity is akin to the logic of how three passengers (one on one flight, one on second flight, an another on a thrid flight) can count as thee passengers even though they are one and the same man, namely because the airline (for it's purposes) doesn't need to track who are their passengers between flights, merely who is what passenger for any given flight; and so will count one and the same person as three distinct passangers, due to their in fact being two distinct passengers, one each time for three distinct flights.
So likewise there are three persons in the Trinity, but only one God, because (regarding the inner logic of the case) Godhood is to the persons in the case of the Trinity, as personhood is to passangerhood in the case of the above example. i.e. Just as the three passengers are not members of one species 'person', but rather, three members of the one species, 'passanger' and one member of the one species 'person'; so the three persons are not members of the one species 'God' but rather three members of the one species, 'person', and one member of the one species 'God'.
The strictly logical point here is that the way we count being can be one in one way, and many in another way; because what is one under one species, may many under another species, which goes to show that being can exist under many species, and can be one in one species and many in another species, even though being is the same across species, and so also, across quantities. Thus the persons on the flight exists in two species: personhood and passangerhood; and the person is one in personhood but many in passangerhood, so that the many passengers are all one person; so likewise God exists in two species; Godhood and personhood; and he is one in Godhood, but many in personhood. So that the many persons are all one God.
It might help to remember that etymologically, 'species' comes form the same word that 'spectate' and 'spectacle' come from i.e. it comes from a word dealing with sight, thus it also has the same root as 'aspect' i.e. a certain way a thing seen presents itself to our sight, so in logic we are speaking not primarily of the sight of the senses, but the sight of the intellect or reason, and so a thing can present itself in many ways to our intellect's sight, so that we can metaphorically 'see' it in that way rather than another; these various 'ways' a thing presents itself are metaphysically real, they are not merely ways we are seeing, but a way of it's being, namely, a way of it's being present, and in particular, it's being present to us and our intellect, but there is no contradiction in this because ancient logicians allowed for such oddity; thus Aristotle did not say that something cannot both be and not be, period; but rather qualified the law of contradiction, saying that something cannot both be and not be 'at the same time and in the same way' (since he was dealing with sophist he also added something like 'and all other relevant qualifications being equal' not quite in those words, but the point is the qualification was to let him get ahead of people playing word games rather than engaging in serious philosophical reflection) thus God may both be one and not be one at the same time, but not 'in the same way', for he is one in one way, namely regarding his divinity, and he is not one but three in another way, namely regarding his personhood, and these two 'ways' of God's being, these two 'species' under which he is present to our mind's through his divine revelation, are in turn the species under which we know God and, to the limited extent we can, the species through which we delve ever more deeply into the infinite depth and inexhaustible mystery of his supreme being.
Nerfing God
Regarding 'nerfing God', Jesus humanity does not take away form his Divinity, but accompanies it. Thus consider; Jesus has two natures, akin to how the one person in the above example exists under two logical species: person and passenger; thus as a passenger he begins to exist when he books his flight and ceases to exist when the flight is over, and yet as a person he exists before, during, and after these events, so the being in question both exists and does not exist, at the same time; but in two different ways; he exists before booking the flight as a person, but not as a passenger; just as likewise when the flight is booked the same being exists in two different ways; in one way as a person, in another way as a passenger; and again, he continues to exist in one way when the flight is over, namely as a person, but ceases to exist in another way, namely as a passenger.
Clearly then one and the same being can both have and lack distinct traits at the same time, so long as the having and lacking are in two distinct ways. In the person/passanger case, it's the trait of existing; in the case of Jesus as divine and human, it is such traits as serving, needing susistinance, being ignorant of some things, etc. as humans he has these traits, but as divine he does not; these two things exist in the unity of the one person; the person could, if he so pleased, take the knowledge from the divine nature and give it to the human mind of the human nature, but has planned not to do this until the end times, so that Jesus can truthfully say that he does not know this, and will not know it until the end times, for the Father has yet to reveal it to any human mind, even to the human mind of Christ; none the less the divine mind of Christ is one and the same mind as the divine mind as the Father, so as the Father knows in his divinity, so does Christ know in his divinity.
Clearly then one and the same being can both have and lack distinct traits at the same time, so long as the having and lacking are in two distinct ways. In the person/passanger case, it's the trait of existing; in the case of Jesus as divine and human, it is such traits as serving, needing susistinance, being ignorant of some things, etc. as humans he has these traits, but as divine he does not; these two things exist in the unity of the one person; the person could, if he so pleased, take the knowledge from the divine nature and give it to the human mind of the human nature, but has planned not to do this until the end times, so that Jesus can truthfully say that he does not know this, and will not know it until the end times, for the Father has yet to reveal it to any human mind, even to the human mind of Christ; none the less the divine mind of Christ is one and the same mind as the divine mind as the Father, so as the Father knows in his divinity, so does Christ know in his divinity.
Trinity and Analogy
If you want an analogy for the Trinity, St. Augustine gave a good analogy in how the Trinity is akin to perfect love of the mind for itself, which neither goes beyond nor beneath what is proper; for in such a love there are three things: the mind, the mind's knowledge of itself, and it's love of itself; for in love there is the lover, beloved, and the love, in knowledge the knower, the known, and the knowledge; but in self-love the beloved is the lover, so that the three are two; and in self-knowledge the knower is the known, so again the three are two; but since in love there is a need to have some conceptual knowledge of the beloved so as to direct one's love to the beloved in the mind, so in love there is knowledge, and so in self love the beloved self-lover is also the known self-knower; so that again in love there are three things, the mind, the knowledge, and the love.
Consider however, how we number these i.e. how we number mind, knowledge, and love as three; namely, in that we do not do so absolutely, but only in their relationship to one another; for if we consider a given case of knowledge or love on it's own considered absolutely and so apart from mind, we still thereby implicitly speak of some particular mind, namely, the mind engaging in knowledge or love, since there is no knowledge nor love without a knowing and loving mind; and so if we speak of knowledge or love absolutely, we can then ask 'out of what is it made?' i.e. matter or spirit; but clearly it is not material, but spirit, and mind to is not matter but spirit; but then we shall have to ask, in a given case of knowledge and love, is the spirit that is the knowledge or love differnt from the spirit that is the mind implicitly spoken of therein, or a different spirit? The answer is rather clearly one spirit; and so in any given case of love, the three things within it; mind, knowledge, and love, are in truth, one spirit; thus in turn, it is only when we consider knowledge and love not in themselves, but in relation to each other and to the mind engaging in them, that we distinguish the three each from the other, mind from knowledge and love, and knowledge and love from one another; so that in one sense they are three, namely when considered in relation to one another, but in another sense they are one, namely, considered absolutely and in themselves.
So too then is the Holy Trinity each person is three considered in relation to the other, but considered absolutely they are one; the Father is like the mind, the Son like the self-knowledge, and the Spirit like the self knowledge; thus, as the Son is said to be begotten of the Father, and called 'the Word' and 'the Image of God' so consider how self-knowledge cannot exist without the mind, and so proceeds from the mind, and when one knows one's self one, as it were, thinks of and imagines one's self in one's mind, but thought is an inner word, and imagination produces images, so that in self-knowledge there is an inner word and image that signifies and resembles one's self, in man this sign and resemblance is imperfect and takes time to form, in God who is timeless and perfect however, the Image and Word of God is likewise timeless, and it is so perfect an Image and Word of the first person that it reflects the very personhood of that first person and so is a whole other person unto itself, the second person of the Trinity, the son of God;. So likewise in human love, this love proceeds from both the mind and it's knowledge, the knowledge giving aim to the love so that it may love the beloved, and also when we love someone we are said, after a manner, to give ourselves to them, and the more we love the more fully and perfectly we give ourselves to them, though this takes time for us and is again an imperfect gift of self due to human imperfection; but God is not so limited, so that God, who loves himself timelessly, also has so perfect a gift of self to self in his love, that the self given even includes his very personhood, so that the self given to self is again, a whole other person, the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit; who is thus also called 'the gift', and who is said to 'proceed from the Father and the Son' as love proceeds from mind and knowledge; and is sometimes spoken of as the Love of the Father and Son for one another.
There is more that can be said here, and St. Augustine goes in to much greater detail in Book IX of 'De Trinitate' (i.e. on the Trinity) but I think this suffices as a brief overview of the analogy, and so can give a sense of the inner structure of the Trinity.
Consider however, how we number these i.e. how we number mind, knowledge, and love as three; namely, in that we do not do so absolutely, but only in their relationship to one another; for if we consider a given case of knowledge or love on it's own considered absolutely and so apart from mind, we still thereby implicitly speak of some particular mind, namely, the mind engaging in knowledge or love, since there is no knowledge nor love without a knowing and loving mind; and so if we speak of knowledge or love absolutely, we can then ask 'out of what is it made?' i.e. matter or spirit; but clearly it is not material, but spirit, and mind to is not matter but spirit; but then we shall have to ask, in a given case of knowledge and love, is the spirit that is the knowledge or love differnt from the spirit that is the mind implicitly spoken of therein, or a different spirit? The answer is rather clearly one spirit; and so in any given case of love, the three things within it; mind, knowledge, and love, are in truth, one spirit; thus in turn, it is only when we consider knowledge and love not in themselves, but in relation to each other and to the mind engaging in them, that we distinguish the three each from the other, mind from knowledge and love, and knowledge and love from one another; so that in one sense they are three, namely when considered in relation to one another, but in another sense they are one, namely, considered absolutely and in themselves.
So too then is the Holy Trinity each person is three considered in relation to the other, but considered absolutely they are one; the Father is like the mind, the Son like the self-knowledge, and the Spirit like the self knowledge; thus, as the Son is said to be begotten of the Father, and called 'the Word' and 'the Image of God' so consider how self-knowledge cannot exist without the mind, and so proceeds from the mind, and when one knows one's self one, as it were, thinks of and imagines one's self in one's mind, but thought is an inner word, and imagination produces images, so that in self-knowledge there is an inner word and image that signifies and resembles one's self, in man this sign and resemblance is imperfect and takes time to form, in God who is timeless and perfect however, the Image and Word of God is likewise timeless, and it is so perfect an Image and Word of the first person that it reflects the very personhood of that first person and so is a whole other person unto itself, the second person of the Trinity, the son of God;. So likewise in human love, this love proceeds from both the mind and it's knowledge, the knowledge giving aim to the love so that it may love the beloved, and also when we love someone we are said, after a manner, to give ourselves to them, and the more we love the more fully and perfectly we give ourselves to them, though this takes time for us and is again an imperfect gift of self due to human imperfection; but God is not so limited, so that God, who loves himself timelessly, also has so perfect a gift of self to self in his love, that the self given even includes his very personhood, so that the self given to self is again, a whole other person, the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit; who is thus also called 'the gift', and who is said to 'proceed from the Father and the Son' as love proceeds from mind and knowledge; and is sometimes spoken of as the Love of the Father and Son for one another.
There is more that can be said here, and St. Augustine goes in to much greater detail in Book IX of 'De Trinitate' (i.e. on the Trinity) but I think this suffices as a brief overview of the analogy, and so can give a sense of the inner structure of the Trinity.
Conclusion
To wit, God is still incomprehensible; but the point is he is not logically incoherent, and this analogy, while it should not be presumed to give us anything close to a full comprehension of the inner being of God; none the less it should help us at least see the internal coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity, and perhaps give some feint insight into the Christian view of God's Trinitarian nature; it remains however that we see only as through a mirror darkly in this life (1 Cor 13:12) it is only in heaven that we shall see God face to face, and so know God as he is, that is, to know him even as we are known.
Comments
Post a Comment