The Difficulties With The Trinity - From The Philosophical Side
By Hal Flemings
April 1990
Jehovah's Witnesses over the years have demonstrated repeatedly from the Holy
Bible that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine. Thus their
attack against the Trinity has been one relying heavily upon the Scriptural
material with some additional support from historical sources. This paper will
analyze the doctrine from a different perspective. The analysis will show that
not only are there Scriptural difficulties in defending the Trinity but there
are philosophical ones as well.
Firstly, how has the Trinity been defined? There are three principal versions of
this teaching which need to be defined:
(1) The most popular version declares that there are three distinct persons
in one God and that each of the distinct persons is equal in age, knowledge,
power and glory to the others. This version is sometimes called the "Athanasian
Creed".
(2) Another version called "modalism" argues that there is only one person in
one God but that that one person can be revealed as the Father or the Son or
the Holy Spirit.
(3) Finally, the version some call "tritheism" is the view that there are, in
fact, three different persons and three different Gods forming the
Trinity.
While the modalist would hold that the Son and the Father are the "same person",
the mainstream Trinitarian would argue that that is not true but that
they are different persons in one God. The tritheist would disagree with
both and propose that the Father and the Son are not the same person and not the
same God but nevertheless make up the same Trinity. All three varieties of
trinitarians are quite certain that Jehovah's Witnesses are incorrect in their
view of this subject.
Is "Some of God" God?
If it is the case that God is composed of three distinct but equal persons, that
would mean that God "equals" all that makes each of the persons distinct
from each other, the sum total of the persons. None of the persons in this model
have the distinctions of the other persons. If they did, they would not be
distinct. Since God would be all that makes each of the persons distinct but
none of the persons shares this capacity or characteristic of God, then none
of the persons could claim to be God. Each could claim to be an "aspect" of
God but that would be different 'from being God. If God equals three
distinct persons but each of the persons does not equal three distinct persons,
then none of the persons could be God.
Do All the Persons Making Up One God Have the Same and Equal Knowledge?
If it is the case that each of the persons of the Godhead share the same
knowledge, then a number of problems emerge.. Among them are these. Since it is
taught that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity and that he is the only
member of the Trinity to die, then it follows that he alone knows the
experience of death. The other two in this paradigm would know the
concept of death but that is qualitatively different from knowing the
experience of death. Hence Jesus' knowledge at least in this instance would be
different from the knowledge of the other two persons. And, even if the three
persons knew everything else the same, Jesus' independent knowledge of
the experience of death would make his knowledge also quantitatively
different from the other two.
If it is indeed the case, that there are three distinct persons in the one God
that share the same knowledge, some other matters come up. Since it is claimed
that the Son has always been distinct from the other two and the Holy Spirit has
always been distinct from the other two and so, then it follows that only the
Son knows the experience of being the Son and only the Father knows the
experience of being the Father and so on. That would then mean that each person
knows something having to do with "himself" that the others do not know. Their
existential difference has created a cognitive difference and thus a difference
that makes a difference.
If Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity now pleads*to God in behalf of
repentant Christians, what would he be saying or feeling in his interceding and
pleading to God that God did not already know and feel since God is supposed to
include in his nature the Second Person and all of the persons are supposed to
share all things in common? If then either of the first two cited versions of
the Trinity is true, then the notion of the Son interceding or pleading to God
means nothing if it means anything.
-------------------------------------------------
* See Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25 and 1 John 2:1.
-------------------------------------------------
All Persons Have The Same Age?
One view of the Trinity says that the Son "proceeded" from God the Father and in
that sense he is eternal since the substance of God is eternal. If true, then it
would not be true that the Son has always existed since. by definition the Son
is the being "proceeding" out of or from God. His substance may be ever existent
but that is different from saying that the Son as the Son and thus the Second
Person of the Trinity has always existed. A similar argument could be made for
humans and animals. Since God is the source of life* and life has always existed
in God, does his gift of life to men and animals mean that men and animals have
an eternal past, one equaling God's?
Do All the Persons Share Equal Glory?
According to Trinitarian teaching when Jesus returned to. heaven following his
resurrection, he resumed an equal nature with the other members of the Godhead.
This egalitarian feature included an equality of dignity and glory. Assuming
this. to be true, it would mean that neither person had more or less glory than
any of the other persons. Yet the Bible specifically declares that at the
"Second Advent" of Christ, the Father confers or gives dignity and glory to
Jesus Christ (Daniel 7:13, 14). If Jesus had already been equal to the Father in
glory and dignity, what does this addition of glory and dignity do for the
concept of equal glory between members of the Trinity?
Foreclosure on an Untenable Doctrine
The doctrine of the Trinity has failed to make a solid case from the Bible. Even
its protagonists equipped with Grecian philosophy who integrated this dogma into
the Church after the death of the Apostles had not thought through the
philosophic consequences. The truth is that God is a being independent of his
Only Begotten Son and that the Holy Spirit is God's agent to accomplish his
purposes throughout the universe. The Trinity doctrine has been constructively
notified to move out because it has not earned a right for unchallengeable,
qualified acceptance.
-------------------------------------------------
* See Psalm 36:9 and Jeremiah 2:13.
|
