The Bible reveals the distinctive and an essential Christian doctrine of the blessed Trinity. The Christian worldview makes this unique claim that God is one and yet there are three who are God.
Although Natural Theology could posit God’s existence and HIS attributes, Trinity, however, belongs to revealed theology. Trinity is a unique nature of God, which can only be comprehended when God reveals HIS nature to man, else man cannot comprehend the unique nature of God.
Since our mind is limited to comprehend the doctrine of Trinity, this doctrine should be honestly and diligently studied. Trinity is denied by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islam and the likes. Hence, Christians dialoguing with the proponents of other worldviews ought to justify and defend the doctrine of the blessed Trinity.
While striving to understand the nature of God from the Bible, especially when there is no explicit mention of the Trinity, all the passages referring to this particular theme ought to be recognized and systematically interpreted. Thus the doctrine of Trinity is an entailment of a diligent hermeneutical enterprise; an exercise in Systematic Theology.
FORMULATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY
The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible. However, the term “Trinity” describes a doctrine that is implicit in the Bible. But the doctrine of Trinity is based on the several explicit teachings found in the Bible.
The following statements form the core of the doctrine of Trinity:1
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7. There is exactly one God.
EVIDENCE FROM THE BIBLE
Trinity is plausible only if the Bible asserts the following three aspects of the Godhead:
(1) The oneness of God.
(2) The three persons who are God.
(3) The three-in-oneness of God.
The Oneness of God is taught in the following passages of the Bible: Exodus 20:2-3, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me” (Emphasis Mine). The Hebrew translation of “before me” means literally “to my face.” Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other” (Emphasis Mine). The Shema in Deuteronomy 6 says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (v4, Emphasis Mine).
Moreover, God has commanded HIS people to love HIM and no-one else (Deuteronomy 6:5) and fear and serve HIM and no-one else (Deuteronomy 6:13).
Verses revealing the oneness of God are not limited to the Old Testament. The New Testament also emphasizes the oneness of God (1 Corinthians 8: 4, 6; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; James 2:19).
The Bible teaches that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three sets of cognitive faculties.
The Father is God (John 6: 27; Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; 1 Timothy 2:5).
The Lord Jesus Christ’s deity is affirmed in the Bible (Isaiah 9:6-7; John 1:1, 20:28-29; Philippians 2: 5-11; Hebrews 1: 3a, 8; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Colossians 1:15-20, 2:9). Christ was placed on an equal footing with God (Matthew 28:19). Christ claimed to forgive sins (Mark 2: 8-10), for which HE was accused of blasphemy by the ardent Jews, for only God can forgive sins. Christ spoke of the angels as HIS angels (Matthew 13:41). He regarded the Kingdom of God (Matthew 12:28, 19:14, 24, 21:31, 43) and the elect of God as HIS own (Mark 13:20). Christ also claimed the power to judge the world (Matthew 25:31-33) and reign over it (Matthew 24:31; Mark 14:62). Significantly, Christ did not deny HIS deity before Caiaphas, “And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said…” (Matthew 26:63-64, NKJV, Emphasis Mine). Last but not the least, Thomas addressed Christ as HIS God (John 20:28).
There are biblical references that identify the Holy Spirit as God (Psalm 139:7-10; Acts 5:3-4). The Holy Spirit is described as having the qualities of God and performing HIS works (John 3:8, 16:7-11; 1 Corinthians 3: 16-17, 6: 19-20, 12: 4-11). The Spirit is also placed on an equal footing with God (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2). Mark 3:29 states that blasphemy against the Spirit of God is an unforgivable sin.
The three-in-oneness of God is also taught in the Bible:
Matthew 28: 19-20 links the three persons of the Godhead and places them in equality. It is imperative to note that the word “name” is singular while describing the three persons, “…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”
The Pauline benediction also places the three persons of the Godhead in unity and equality (2 Corinthians 13:14).
John’s gospel provides the strongest evidence of a coequal Trinity (1:33-34, 14:16, 26, 16:13-15, 20:21-22 cf. 1 John 4:2, 13-14).
The oneness of the Father and the Son (John 10:30, 14:6-11), the Son and the Spirit (Romans 8:9) and Father and the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11) is also taught in the Bible.
Although the Bible does not explicitly state the three-in-oneness of God, adequate data is found in the Bible (as mentioned above), which suggests the unity of the three persons of the Godhead.
TRINITY & THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION
The doctrine of Trinity is not self contradictory, “Some attempt to argue against the Trinity by asserting that the concept is in violation of the law of non-contradiction. How can God, they ask, be both one and three at the same time? The law of non-contradiction asserts that something cannot be ‘a’ and ‘non-a’ at the same time and in the same sense. I do not think the Trinity violates this principle, however, since the doctrine maintains that God is one in a sense and three in a different sense. He is one in substance or essence but not one in person…”2
THE PLAUSIBILITY ARGUMENT
Dr. William Lane Craig argues for the plausibility of the Trinity from the perspective of love, “God is by definition the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of His nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to His essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary. [sic] cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself.
In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any unitarian doctrine of God.”3
ENDNOTES:
1http://edwardfeser.blogspot.in/2010/02/trinity-and-mystery.html, last accessed 18th February 2017.
2http://crossexamined.org/the-trinity-defended/, last accessed 18th February 2017.
3http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity, last accessed 18th February 2017.
All Scripture references are from NIV, unless otherwise mentioned.
The links in the comment http://disq.us/p/1p9bdlm carry us further into the nature of Trinity with respect to the Divine Mind and The Absolute’s Own Reference Frame, which cannot be anything other than Self-Reference.
With respect to Divine Simplicity, Negative Theology, and Knowledge, a few segues:
[1] https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/the-natural-theology-of-negation/
[2] https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/a-rather-simple-concern/
[3] https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/an-situated-historicity-or-a-brief-explanation-of-why-we-are-actually-able-to-know-things/
[4] https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2017/07/11/rational-freedom-or-a-short-exploration-of-the-place-of-reasons-and-causes-in-action/
Trinity ↔ via a few brief exchanges ↔
http://disq.us/p/1hnmq5m ↔ http://disq.us/p/1hpgoye
http://disq.us/p/1np1a3s ↔ http://disq.us/p/1n4ocnu
http://disq.us/p/1n513he ↔ http://disq.us/p/1n519uf
http://disq.us/p/1ndwwd4 ↔ http://disq.us/p/1la92s8
http://disq.us/p/1lag5uk ↔ http://disq.us/p/1l93q4e
http://disq.us/p/1l9gsdp ↔ and also
http://disq.us/p/1llserf which is also at ↔ https://www.str.org/node/42664#comment-3483169467
A few discussions on the topic of Trinity ↔
http://disq.us/p/1np1a3s ↔ http://disq.us/p/1n4ocnu
http://disq.us/p/1n513he ↔ http://disq.us/p/1n519uf
http://disq.us/p/1ndwwd4 ↔ http://disq.us/p/1la92s8
http://disq.us/p/1lag5uk ↔ http://disq.us/p/1l93q4e
http://disq.us/p/1l9gsdp ↔ http://disq.us/p/1llserf
↔ https://www.str.org/node/42664#comment-3483169467
well let’s see if underlined here….
SCB
1. Sorry if I was not clear – the only mediator thing that someone has introduced is irrelevant to me – and really irrelevant to the text.
2. There are no assumptions re the 1Tim text – the text stands clear as written – it is completely unambiguous and didactic. No exegetical issues or errors here. The only trouble is for someone with a pre-conceived agenda who does not want the text to say what the text clearly and obviously states – a meaning that IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT – you and every other reader of English would easily and fully grasp.
BTW – YHWH is NOT a math problem…;-)
GL25,
My comment is in moderation. I’ll try it one more time:
That’s what the quote was for. I’ll try again: You’ve not justified your assumptions on the I Timothy quote earlier. Is it your assumption that you cannot be both the mediator between 2 beings and one of those 2 beings…unless you contort the meaning of mediator? That’s obviously false and it is relevant because given the references to Christ with what must sum to YHWH, why would you just assume that? Especially given that it’s an assumption which is factually wrong.
GL25,
Yes the text is clear. We agree then that the text is clearly discussing the triune God. See how easy that was?
SCB
I don’t play games.
Especially not with the Word of God.
You are too intelligent to be doing what you are doing – I expect a lot more of you.
GL25,
The I Timothy quote is perfectly coherent with the rest of scripture with respect to the triune nature under review. Are you surprised by that claim? Is this really your reaction to that claim? I’ve offered a very basic example of what I think your assumption is with respect to that verse and have offered reasons as to why the assumption itself is misguided. Are we done then?
GL25,
WRT the I Timothy quote, it is perfectly coherent with the rest of scripture with respect to the triune nature under review. Are you surprised by that claim? Is this really your reaction to that claim?
I’ve given you a basic example of what I think your assumption is with respect to that verse.
I’ve given a few reasons why the assumption itself is misguided.
“You’re playing games” doesn’t address that.
SCB
“Perfectly coherent”, while a perfectly false statement, is entirely an distinct statement from the claim “clearly discussing”.
The latter claim was the the subject of my response.
SCB
re “being done”
I have offered a path forward – but have not heard a response…. Making claims – especially outlandish – is not providing the specific model one is claiming. How about stepping out to provide a detailed model of your christology. I will do the same – I am even willing to go first if that will help build courage…:-)
I repeat the path forward here
That being said – if you are interested in pursuing a Christological discussion, I am open to the idea – based on this process.
1. You clearly state your model – in detail. I will do the same.
2. You pick on text and we exegete it together until resolved.
3. I do pick a text for the same effort
4. Etc.
NOTE: I have never had a trin go beyond beyound 1.
GL25,
The model is at the top of the thread with my opening comments. Did you miss it?
Perhaps you can unpack “Being Itself” as well?
You, “I Timothy clearly supports, if you read it for what it says, the Unitarian claim.”
Me, “I Timothy clearly supports, if you read it for what it says, the Trinitarian claim.”
As of now, I’ve taken that about three steps further down the line of discussion, as you’ve requested.
As of now, you’ve accused me of playing games.
I’ve laid out the Trinitarian metaphysic under review.
You’ve claimed I’ve not laid out any model.
I linked to a discussion in which the Trinity model is most certainly spelled out.
You’ve claimed no one ever lays out said model.
So are we done?
Sure
GL25,
As noted earlier, only about half of the linked thread is helpful specifically to this. Here is one other comment from that half, for some more context:
Quote:
“Can you provide me a list of 6 or 7 examples from the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke […in which Jesus is referred to as YHWH…] …I mean, if I were writing a book about God in the flesh….”
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
Matthew 3:1-17, Mark 1:1-11, Luke 3:4-22 and John 1:23-34, together with Isaiah 40:3.
John in preparing the way for Jesus is said to be preparing the way for YHWH.
Ergo, Jesus=YHWH.
You’ll note, BTW, that Mark and Luke actually identified Jesus as YHWH in the first chapter. Not that they made chapter divisions, but it’s fair to say that Jesus=YHWH is what they led with. So it looks like Luke and Mark, at least, took your advice on how to write a book about God in the flesh.
Matthew also led with Jesus=YHWH, but in a little different way that I’ll outline in a moment.
John simply led with the vaguer claim that Jesus is God…I guess that they all could not be as explicit as Matthew, Mark and Luke. At least to start with. John does get around, eventually, to identifying Jesus as YHWH too.
————
Matthew
Matthew 1:20-23
The angel tells Joseph to name Mary’s son YHWH-Saves (Jesus), because He, Mary’s Son, will save his people.
Jesus = YHWH
————
Peter
I Peter 2:3 together with Psalms 34:8
Peter tells believers that they have tasted and seen that the Lord is Good, referring to Jesus (the Stone that the Builders Rejected), but the Psalmist says that of YHWH.
Jesus = YHWH.
Also, Acts 2:17-2:21 together with Joel 2:32
In the NT Church’s first sermon, Luke records Peter as saying of Jesus that they that call upon his name shall be saved, Joel says this of YHWH.
Jesus = YHWH
————
Paul
Romans 14:10-11, Philippians 9:2-11 together with Isaiah 45:3.
Referencing Isaiah 45, Paul says that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.
The reference to Isaiah, again, puts Jesus in the place of YHWH.
This passage also makes pretty clear what the other passages have been pointing to (so that a pretty good inductive case could already be made). Namely, that the NT is using “Lord (Kurios)” in the same way that the Septuagint did: as a stand in for the word “YHWH”, which has no Greek equivalent.
Jesus = YHWH
and “Lord Jesus” = “YHWH-Jesus”
In Hebrews 1:10-12 Paul makes a similar reference to Jesus, putting Him in the place of YHWH, in a reference to Psalms 102.
————
Jude
Jude does not make any explicit reference to Jesus as the YHWH of an OT passage. But He does say of the Sovereign Lord Jesus that it was He who delivered the Jews out of Egypt and destroyed the unbelievers, who keeps the fallen angels in darkness, who destroyed Sodom and Gommorah.
But it was YHWH who did all those things.
Jesus = YHWH.
————
There are other identifications of Jesus as YHWH in the NT, but did I miss a NT author (excepting James)?
No, I do not believe that I did.
In fairness to James, He does use the phrase “The Lord Jesus” or “The Lord Jesus Christ” right along with the rest of the NT. And He probably uses it the same way…using “Lord (Kurios)” the way that the Septuagint uses “Lord”…so that “Lord Jesus” means “YHWH-Jesus”.
You will actually be hard pressed to find any NT reference or allusion to an OT use of the word “YHWH” that does not put Jesus in the place of YHWH. There are a few that put the Holy Spirit, and I think one that puts the Father, in the place of YHWH. But its mostly Jesus that the NT authors seem to be keen on identifying with YHWH.
End quote.
Completely lost as to why the trinity is “essential”.
At no point in scripture is the trinity specifically identified – much less identified as essential. The trinity is merely an assumption based in on the assumed exegesis of disparate texts (as has been noted above).
The height of hubris seems to be to call something that is not even formally stated – much less stated as essential – to be “essential” Christianity.
I find that greatly disturbing – and the such professors thus have severe credibility issues.
Greg, How would you describe the presence of God, Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit as specified in the Bible?
Hi Richard
Thanks for the follow-up.
1. What do you mean “presence”?
2. Where in scripture do you find that believing in the trinity is “Essential”?
I noted that you specified “God” – in contrast to Jesus and the Holy Spirit – I found that interesting. After all, it is “God” that were are trying to understand – from a Messianic (as recorded) and Apostolic mind.
Thanks
Greg
Greg, by “presence,” I mean the existence of God. And by God, I meant, God the Father. I find belief in Trinity to be essential because of the simple reason that apart from God the Father, Jesus & the Holy Spirit are also mentioned as God. Then there is the evidence of three-in-oneness of God as described in the Bible.
So there we go
What is your religious persuasion, if I may ask.
Thanks
Rajkumar Richard
First, I am not certain what name you prefer – I would like to address you by your preferred name…. (“greet one another by name”).
re Presence of God
Very good – I just wanted to be sure since “presence of God” has a variety of meanings in the American religious scene. You simply mean existence in the standard theological sense – person/nature esp. w/ respect to trinity – which is what I expected.
re: God
I find it both interesting an odd that people – more so in scripture – use the term God – often in contrast to Jesus and the Holy Spirit (as you seemed to do). Since you consider Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be God – I find it strange that you would list them in this manner. Wouldn’t you just say – “the Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit” or some such? Sorry to be picayunish – however, when one is making such a claim as “essential Christian doctrine” then it seems we need be very specific and clear in our language.
re: Essential per Richard
My challenge with your reasoning in your response is that many entities are called God (as you know). Why not add them along with Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
re: Essential Christian Doctrine
Where in the Word of God is the trinity established as “essential Christian Doctrine” as you claim in your first sentence in the article? That is a pretty big assertion….
re: My Religious Persuasion
I am a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth – a man attested by God with signs and miracles – whom God raised from the dead and made both Lord and Messiah.
Best,
Greg Logan
Greg, Please call me Raj
Before I get on to answering your questions…please answer this for me…Do you believe that Christ Jesus is God?
Raj
Admittedly, I was tempted to ask “What do you mean “God”” – since the terms elohim and theos have a variety of applications in the scriptures – even as the term “god” has a variety of applications in English…:-). However, since I already knew your answer, I caged my “attention to detail” self (I am a CPA by trade…:-) ).
OK – the answer is Yes and No.
Jesus IS God in the sense that He described in Jn10:30ff (related to Ps89 as well as Ps45:6, etc.).
Jesus is NOT God in the sense of the later developed Logos Christology (end of 2nd/beg of 3rd centuries) that ultimately culminated in Chalcedon and Cyril’s anhypostasis, etc. In other words, Jesus is not ontologically God – He is representationally/positionally God (cf Jn20:28).
BTW – I will be out of town for the next week and a half – so my follow-up will be slow due to lack of online access. However, I appreciate your follow-up and look forward to your responses.
Take your time, Greg. But help me to understand your position better here and clarify this aspect for me about your belief…any being cannot be representationally or positionally God, if that being is not ontologically God. Do you agree or disagree?
Raj –
Thanks!
re Clarification
Totally disagree – in fact just the opposite is the Biblical perspective – as we have many instances in scripture that counter that statement. This was the whole point of Jesus’ discussion in Jn10:30ff as one of the best known examples of non-ontological representational/positional use of the term theos/elohim/god.
Greg, please bear with my delayed response…
In John 10:30, Christ says that HE and the Father are one…in other words, they are ontologically one. Why do you disagree with this proposition?
Raj
There is nothing re ontology in the context.
In fact, Jesus denies being God in the context – and clarifies His reference as representational/positional via the use of Ps89 (and the use of theos/elohim as such).
As usual, of course, the Jews misunderstood Jesus – because they understood him in a fleshly (earthly) manner – just like they did in just about every other instance in the book of John (“how shall He rebuild this temple..”. etc.). I find it odd the evangelicals make the exact same exegetical blunders…:-(.
More important – Jesus exegeted the meaning Himself – in Jn17:20-22. I am far more comfortable with Jesus exegesis than the local evangelical preacher…:-). It is certainly true that a lot of even those who hold themselves out as teachers make a huge exegetical blunder because they are not paying attention to Jesus and the whole of the Gospel of John. This is, of course, disappointing…:-(.
Greg, Christ does not deny being God. That is substantiated well in the Bible and I have endeavored to bring some into this article. In fact, the position that Christ is not God is an entailment of a faulty exegesis, which is, as you may well know, the most favored position of, lets say, Islamic apologetics (this is not to say that you are a Muslim).
Significantly, the positional or representational god concept is not a concept of God at all. God, by definition, ought to be a maximally great being, which is predicted on that fact that God should be uncaused, if HE is to be maximally great. If God is uncaused, then HE should be eternal, spaceless, timeless and incorporeal. A positional / representational view of the divine cannot fulfill these attributes. Hence, positional / representational view of the divine cannot be a true representation of the divine.
Moreover, if Christ is not God in an ontic sense, why worship HIM?
Raj
Thanks for the follow-up.
Actually Jesus DOES deny being God – so many times that I could not count them right off. Jn17:3 is a great starting point – but there are so many others. I trust you are not expecting Jesus to formally state “I am not ontologically God”. That would be a completely anachronistic statement.
re: Jesus as Our God
I fully acknowledge that Jesus is our God – the issue is simply “in what sense” is He our God (I think you understand my point here).
re: Positional/Representational Concept of God
I humbly implore you to do a bit more reading – starting with the Messenger in Ex23:21, Moses in Ex7:1, etc. In fact, we are to sit in the throne of Christ as Christ is to sit in His Father’s throne…. Can’t think of anything more Positional than that…:-). The concept of Elohim/Theos as positional and representational is so fundamental to the Hebraic/Messianic/Apostolic mind, I am pretty surprised you are bringing this up.
re: Why Worship
Ask Daniel why he received worship of Nebuchadrezzar – and, likewise, Solomon (1Chron29:20) and about 10+ other OT instances… And, for fun, ask why Jesus Himself commands those of the synagogue of Satan to worship His Church (Rev3:9)…:-)
Raj, I am open to further dialogue on this subject, however, with respect, the points you are bring up are pretty basic and simply reflect the notions of the typical undiscipled evangelical, e.g. the whole worship thing simply reflects a lack of basic Biblical understanding of the concept of proskunew, etc. Additionally, several of your claims are simply your own ideas/opinions about what “makes sense” to you but are without scriptural basis, e.g. “if Christ is not God in an ontic sense, why worship HIM?”. This is not a sound method for apologetics for someone desiring represent the Lord Jesus Christ.
I propose this – we start with you providing a clear statement of your Christological model. I will provide mine. Once we get those models cleared – you can pick one specific basis to support your model – once thoroughly reviewed and resolved, I will pick one to support mine. Please note – I have never had anyone with the traditional Christology be able to complete the provision of their own model (certainly I expect details of any claims!!) – but would certainly appreciate someone who did! Does this approach make sense to you?
Yours,
)
In our God and Savior, the man Christ Jesus (
Greg Logan
Greg,
The basic ingredient for a dialogue is civility. The moment a dialogue departs from civility wherein you judge that I am a “typical undiscipled evangelical”, I wish to exit.
I wish you would have engaged my ideas than me as a person, whom you have no knowledge of, other than a minuscule introduction and exchange of theological notions.
Thanks
Raj
I am sorry that you were offended. I had hoped to word my disappointment in a manner that was not personal but focused on the fact that certain ideas you were sharing were of a nature that represented such a lack of basic Bible knowledge as to be representative of the typical evangelical (my reference was not to yourself – but the specific ideas) – who has almost no basic Bible knowledge but simply regurgitates whatever tradition has been foisted on them. I had hoped you would see that my wording was focused on the ideas presented and, as such, I provided a specific.
Please note – I do not even condemn undiscipled evangelicals EXCEPT when they arrogantly and condescendingly assert their “truth” and cause so much havoc thereby – which, unfortunately, I encounter regularly…:-(.
If nothing less, I hope you at least understand the effort of my statement despite it being perhaps less carefully worded than I had wished.
Best,
Greg
Raj
Please note also – that you do portray yourself as “a teacher of Israel” – even an “apologist”. These are pretty lofty positions to be setting oneself – that is, one who is telling others – including “those without” – what the “truth of Christ” is.
As such, I was sort of surprised with some of the ideas you were presenting.
Not sure if this will help but at least provide a source of my perspective.
Greg
The blog post of “Our Existence as Relational Beings Points to the Trinity” at http://www.str.org/blog/our-existence-relational-beings-points-trinity#.WOdUX0YrJLU is helpful. In the comment box or thread there are 136 comments and your position raises several of the concerns raised by that thread’s named AngryGrasshopper which are discussed and replied to by the thread’s named WisdomLover. Probably two-thirds of the 136 comments is their dialogue, and that two-thirds is helpful for clearing up some of the muddied waters.
SCB
Thanks for the follow-up. I took a brief look at the comments – about 10 or so.
I find the use of human reason based on human experience – that is, the blog piece itself – so painfully bankrupt – that it is hard to want to even think in those terms…
Admittedly, your statement below sort of blew a gasket, and I left off the discussion and have returned to the clear statements of the Messianic and Apostolic minds –
Father…. the “only true God” AND (someone other than…)
“To us there is one God – the Father…”
SCB – The simple fact is this – whether we like it or not, whether it makes sense from our human perspective or not, Jesus, Paul and the rest of the gang were unabashed pure monotheists. Frankly, whatever reality is may be completely different – but at least I want to respect the text that we have been given presumably reflecting their mind (and further corroborated by Tertullian in the beginning of the 3rd C….cf Adv Praxeas Ch3v1ff).
SCB’s Gasket Blowing Statement
“But absolute Being must be pure Actuality, and pure Actuality must be Infinite Consciousness, and Infinite Consciousness must be triune – or else absurdity.”
G.L.
Sorry, I meant the reference to A.G. and W.L. and their dialogue specifically. They are similar to your approach as far as concerns, for example:
And so on. Fairly basic stuff.
SCB
Not sure where all the above is coming from – nor the human “rational”/assumptions contained therein. I prefer the simply text of the Apostle Paul
“There is one God AND (someone other than than the one God)…
You know the rest of the text as well as I do.
Best
Greg
GL25,
The excerpt above of the referenced dialogue between WL/AG is one sort of problem for the Unitarian, obviously there are others. That said, in that same thread another helpful insight is in the comment from WL to AG which opens as follows:
Etc.
SCB
I have no interest or need of an atheist providing vss re “deity” of Christ – I know the Bible fully well enough to have long ago found the relevant texts (there are, after all, only 27 short books…:-) ).
The dialogue between WL/AG provided no problem for those who believe the Father is “the only true God”. Jesus Himself provided all the text that was necessary.
GL25,
Focus on the I Timothy quote as it obviously supports Trinitarian claims, and is provided simply to demonstrate the nature of these questions and the logical missteps which are on occasion taken for granted within Unitarian approaches.
SCB
OMG!?!?
With respect, that is the most delusional comment I have ever heard. And I know you are far more intelligent – but the agenda driven thing I am less certain about….
GL25,
That was part of the reason that the dialogue was linked as it reflects the sort of reply you’ve given here when you’re faced with actual arguments with respect to one’s assumptions. The other part of course has to do with looking at things with a wider lens as such relates to various trinitarian vectors and so on.
People give all kinds of great reasons why a serial adulterer who gloated in manipulating and abusing women s/b president of the US….
As an intelligent, literate follower of Jesus Christ, I can easily recognize absurdities that are simply not worth the moment of my eyeball being impacted….
Finding the trin in 1Tim2:5 would be a classic example. I won’t even bother explaining as it is not worth the time. Simply reading the text is enough. If someone can’t get it – they have a completely different agenda rather than the standard meaning of words on the page – which is the only hermenuetic I operate by (within the context of known figures of speech where relevant, naturally).
GL25,
Jesus says hate your parents. It’s right there in black and white. It contradicts Moses. Hence one must do more than read a verse. Or even a chapter. That’s not the nature of Scripture’s design.
SCB
1. Distinct issue (not analogous)
2. As I noted – “figures of speech” 1Tim2:5 is didactic – and…unambiguous…
GL25,
I don’t find your analysis convincing and your failure to address the premises and assumptions in your conclusion is unfortunate. I linked the dialogue in hopes that you’d actually respond to content.
SCB
Just read the text (without an agenda)…:-)
GL25,
You seem to agree with AG in (…etc…) and assume that, “You can not be both the mediator between 2 beings and one of those 2 beings…unless you contort the meaning of mediator”. But that’s just fallacious.
SCB
I would not use that as a meaningful argument in 1Tim2:5 – simply because it is a level of complexity that is entirely unnecessary to pursue.
Simple read the words on the page – they are self-explanatory….
Nothing more needs to be said – a completely coherent, comprehensive, clear and unambiguous, didactic statement. What more do you need (UNLESS it does not fit with a pre-conceived agenda….)???
GL25,
Given all the verses you’re leaving out, which are in part discussed in the linked dialogue, I Timothy clearly doesn’t fit your conclusion. But then that’s the point of this demonstration. And if pursuing one’s own assumptions and definitions is not necessary, or is too complicated, or too dangerous, well then, that too is the point of this demonstration.
SCB
I am not interested in manipulating the clear meaning of this text – the text is unambiguous and complete within in itself.
That being said – if you are interested in pursuing a Christological discussion, I am open to the idea – based on this process.
1. You clearly state your model – in detail. I will do the same.
2. You pick on text and we exegete it together until resolved.
3. I do pick a text for the same effort
4. Etc.
NOTE: I have never had a trin go beyond beyound 1.
G.L.25,
Yes, Monotheism certainly is the only rational, and true, option. On that we agree.
SCB
Monotheism – without any mind games – means one entity. The artificial dichotomization of an entity into distinctive “person” vs “nature” parts is completely unknown except in the early church history to – ultimately – manage a lot of really lousy exegesis.
Neither Jesus nor Paul nor I nor any follower of the Lord Jesus would recognize any such tomfoolery within the the context of the Kingdom of God.
Best,
Greg
GL25,
The above comment which you replied to disappeared when I made two paragraphs into one paragraph. I’ll re-post here and reply to this latest post of yours simply with simplicity, as in divine simplicity: epistemic distinction does not equate to ontological division.
G.L.25,
Sorry, I meant the reference to A.G. and W.L. and their dialogue specifically. They are similar to your approach as far as concerns, for example:
And so on. Fairly basic stuff.
SCB – Yes, I noticed that – goofy…
Here was response –
SCB
Not sure where all the above is coming from – nor the human “rational”/assumptions contained therein. I prefer the simply text of the Apostle Paul
“There is one God AND (someone other than than the one God)…
You know the rest of the text as well as I do.
….and reply to this latest post of yours simply with simplicity, as in divine simplicity: epistemic distinction does not equate to ontological division…..let’s hope this makes it through the proverbial filter…..
BTW – atheism is the least of my concerns – religious traditionalism – perhaps now Dominionism are FAR greater infections that have and are running rampant through any semblance of “the church”.
Allow me to belatedly chime in in the interest of getting to the point since Greg’s replies to your question of “Do you believe that Christ Jesus is God?” was not unambiguous.
So, I’ll answer the question with a clear “No”.
I do believe in God and I believe that Jesus Christ (Christ = Greek for ‘Anointed one’) is the Only Begotten Son of God. To further clarify, I believe they are two separate and independent beings with their own identities.
The Greek root of ‘Christ’ means ‘the anointed one’. That implies that someone other than himself anointed Him and that someone had to be God. Who else would be in a position to do so? The bible clearly shows that they are separate beings with their own identities.
Now, to when and how God begot His Son, I do not know, nor does that really matter. The Bible does indicate that it happened well before ‘The Beginning’, so He obviously predated the world in which He participated in the creation of. When God said “Let US make man in OUR own image” He wasn’t using some fatuous version of the ‘Royal We’. Just who was there with God during creation if not Jesus His Son?
I agree completely.
As a completely committed Christian who came to Christ independent of any religion other than prayer and reading the bible, I am completely mystified how the Trinity concept came to be. There is no way it can be supported by an objective reading of the text without making Jesus into a double talking deceiver. Scriptures such as the oft cited “I and my Father are one” are so easily given alternative meanings (directly from other scriptures) that it is not worth arguing here. As to the contention that Jesus claimed to be God, it’s just not there.
When God spoke upon the occasion of Jesus being baptized saying “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased.” was he playing games with us by throwing his own voice from the sky? It is insulting to even suggest such a thing. Why would anyone want to follow such a prankster?
It takes tortuous mental gymnastics and the surrender of ‘reason’ to the edict of ‘Authority’ to embrace ‘Trinity’. Why?
As to the suggestion that this denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, GOOD GRIEF!, since when is being the Only Begotten Son of God, seated at the right hand of God – not divine? I fail to see the blasphemy in that.
The Greek root of ‘Christ’ means ‘the anointed one’. That implies that someone other than himself anointed Him and that someone had to be God. Who else would be in a position to do so? The bible clearly shows that they are separate beings with their own identities.
Jmarco
I perceive you did not receive this of men – but from God.
The historical development of the trinity is actually not all that difficult to ascertain – with a little homework and reflection. I am providing a fascinating snippet for you below from Tertullian’s Adv Praxeas that demonstrates that the trinity did not exist as the early church theology (notwithstanding ICor8:6).
However, more important is the fatal flaw in the hypostatic union – the anhypostasis of the human nature of Jesus Christ. I trust you are familiar ?? As well as with the implications?? In contrast to the clear Messianic/Apostolic teaching that Jesus is a man – distinct from God (Jn8:40 – a great example… NOTE: NOT human nature or full God/fully man – just “a man”. There are ten other clear didactic references to the same by each Apostle). If this fatal flaw is not clear to you – then I encourage a bit of homework – I would be happy to provide a couple brief documents that will get you up to speed if you contact me personally.
To note – the occasional references of OT Yah texts to Jesus are easily understand Hebrew literary devices that are not uncommon – please consider “Elijah did come – if you are able to receive it”, etc.
Chapter III.-Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions.
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned, ) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation25 (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oi0konomi/a. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God).26 And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose their understanding of the monarxi/a (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the monarxi/a (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the oi0konomi/a, or Dispensation (of the Three in One).
A Thoroughly Trinitarian Metaphysic:
Part 2:
Therefore certainty/uncertainty cannot help us decide – or more precisely – certainty/uncertainty do not necessarily and rationally compel reason (…in her role as truth-finder…) into A vs. B. vs. C., as it were. But that’s old news. Everybody already knows that with respect to the nature of knowledge of reality (…on the one hand…) and the fundamental nature of reality (…on the other hand…).
All that is left then is that painful “Y” in the road between the forced reductio ad absurdum (…on the one hand…) and reason’s lucidity (…on the other hand…). Uncertainty never has disqualified a premise, but what is clear is that when this or that premise forces a reduction to absurdity, the premise itself is (then) rationally rejected. Reason’s relentless demands for lucidity press ever forward, outward, upward.
The fundamental nature of reason, logic, knowledge, and perception will always force our hands, whatever paradigm we may be working within. Regarding this or that “metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility”, no rational person intentionally embraces absurdity (…the proverbial reductio ad absurdum and so on…). The reach of the physical sciences (…on the one hand…) and of reason herself (…on the other hand…) are universally and fundamentally distinct, and distinction here does not mean wholly disconnected from one another, but simply means that they – and their respective reaches – are in a relevant sense different (….scientism being fallacious (etc.)….).
Knowledge just isn’t “physics-full-stop” (….methodological naturalism etc…) and the moment the Non-Theist attempts to claim that such *is* the definition of Knowledge is the moment reality’s universal and fundamental transcendentals come roaring in to dismantle his “.…cluster of tautological statements giving an appearance of a meaningful structure or system when stacked and leaned up against each other at various angles …. the resultant spaces providing the necessary illusion for pattern projecting subjects to go on to…..” (DNW) The Non-Theist and physicist Sean Carroll makes the attempt in his “The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself” and, bit by bit, the absurdity of “useful but not true” (…in various “layers” of “reality”…) subsumes all of his syntax.
Therein we find that one chooses, embraces, prefers – loves – absurdity over coherence , one chooses, embraces, prefers, loves, some contour of the ludicrous more than this or that contour of the lucid, one chooses the irrational over the rational. In short, there amid that unavoidable interface between self and truth the volitional man vis-à-vis the will of man invades the doxastic experience and displaces reason, hijacking the role of truth-finder and the rational man suffers yet another dive into he knows not what.
And there it is. QED.
That move by (too many) Non-Theists is hard evidence that one’s doxastic experience is fueled not “just” by evidence/reason, but also by other vectors subsumed within the intentional-being, within the being’s will, within taste and agenda. That the sky is blue may be a belief compelled such that one cannot deny it except by embracing the absurd, and yet the rationally compelled belief is *not* (…as is demonstrable…) constituted of “just” evidence/reason. If the price is sacred enough the Non-Theist will be telling us there is no such thing as blue, nor sky, nor sight, or I, nor self, nor even the utterance of “the sky is blue” nor even this very sentence one is reading for it – all of it – is you see but the absurd and the opaque, the “useful but not true”. You’re not reading this sentence. There is no sentence. There is no room for *you* to be *doing* anything there in nature’s four fundamental forces/waves which all layers ultimately reduce to, as all layers but one are ultimately and cosmically illusory. In fact, even the perception of our senses by which we organize nature’s four fundamental forces – and so on – are also subsumed by the illusory such that there is not even *one* layer which is “real”. It is *not* “…we know not what…” for there is no “we” nor “know” nor “what” nor “it”. Full Stop.
Still far from home, the light breaks through:
Non-Theists are compelled into the hard stop of Mind and they therein do most of the Christian’s work for him in these discussions. That is to say that atheistic philosophers get there all by themselves as we’re just forced into it by logic regardless of our presuppositions. The hard stop of Mind is peculiar. One has to squint really hard to deny it – to eliminate it – but even then……… The choice between ultimate or cosmic or final absurdity (…one the one hand…) or God / the Divine Mind (…on the other hand…) is, if we are patient – and we are – where these conversations always end up.
It is simply a matter of [1] following reason, logic, and observational reality as far as they will take you and, from there, [2] pulling in that which makes the most sense of all the information and also being careful to embrace [3] that which avoids the many pains of this or that reductio ad absurdum. Atheists of all strips do the Christian’s work for him here, saving the Christian all sorts of time, as they (…Non-Theists of all strips…) typically follow reason and logic and end up within various cousins of solipsism, both hard and soft, which of course is again what the Christian’s metaphysic predicts as that proverbial “Y” in the road between the Divine Mind (…on the one hand…) and Absurdity (…on the other hand…) approach ever more rapidly.
Truth-Finding:
As for Consciousness in God, that is to say, as for the constitutions of “Irreducible and Infinite Consciousness” in what is necessarily nothing less than *GOD* / “Being Itself”, such is, to be sure, another part to this narrative as we are forced thricely into an infinite locus of consciousness each of which by necessity cannot be less than Being in totum.
Consciousness in *GOD* is not and cannot be on ontological par with any contingent consciousness for given what the term *GOD* necessarily entails, the Divine Mind necessarily entails three irreducible and Infinite Loci of that which (…by logical necessity…) cannot be “less than” that which is Infinite Consciousness.
And here – in the Divine Mind, in God – in Infinite Consciousness – we must move methodically within the contours of Divine Simplicity:
It is uncanny that while, say, “Power” or “Goodness” or “Truth” all speak to some contour within Divine Simplicity, such do not force distinct centers of consciousness, whereas, while still within that same landscape, we do eventually come upon the affairs of *GOD* vis-à-vis Infinite Consciousness and, once we arrive “there“, we discover that the Divine Mind necessarily entails three irreducible and Infinite Loci of that which (…by necessity…) cannot be less than Infinite Consciousness, which cannot be less than “Being In Totum“.
The trio of the Infinite Knower (which in Infinite and Irreducible Consciousness cannot be less than Being in totum) and of the Infinitely Known (which in Infinite and Irreducible Consciousness cannot be less than Being in totum) and of all Communique/Procession vis-à-vis Logos therein (which in Infinite and Irreducible Consciousness cannot be less than Being in totum) carries – compels even – logic and reason into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic.
Nothing less than Being Itself presents reason with an irreducible substratum within the contours of Infinite Consciousness and it is both uncanny and yet expected that we find therein nothing less than love’s indestructible and timeless reciprocity. All definitions stream from *that* metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility such that the Imago Dei itself and Reason itself and the Beautiful itself and the Rational itself are – all – in fact ontologically seamless with what is nothing less than the Moral landscape.
The complete metaphysic compels reason into the inimitable semantics of necessity, into the syntax of gospel, into a timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum:
And again:
Avoiding Absurdity and Embracing Lucidity – Approaching Home:
The topography amid the Infinite Knower (which in Infinite and Irreducible Consciousness cannot be less than Being in totum) and of the Infinitely Known (which in Infinite and Irreducible Consciousness cannot be less than Being in totum) and of all Communique/Procession vis-à-vis Logos therein (which in Infinite and Irreducible Consciousness cannot be less than Being in totum) is unavoidable, as alluded to. Just as unavoidable, contra various Non-Theistic straw-men, distinction is not division as logic compels us thricely into an infinite locus of infinite consciousness such that [A] is not [B] and [B] is not [C] and [C] is not [A] wherein each (…by logical necessity…) cannot be “less than” The Absolute or Being in totum.
One’s frame of reference:
Having arrived in the Divine Mind by starting outside of such and allowing reason and logic to compel us truth-ward, we then discover that the rational terminus of reason’s impossibly extravagant appetite in fact never leaves the elemental substratum of Reason Itself and is therein – in a full and ontic sense – a kind of total rationalism:
While none of this sums to any sort of claim upon any kind of thoroughgoing Idealism, the Divine Mind is inescapable. Within that context of Idealism juxtaposed to Christianity (…and nothing more is implied here…) one can perhaps consider landscapes as discussed in “Idealism and Christian Theology: Idealism and Christianity Volume 1” within its subsection titled, “Necessary processions of idea and action in God“. It seems logic and reason in fact “compel” us into the Divine Mind and that, once there, logic and reason again compel us into something irreducibly triune. On sheer force of will I suppose one can reason oneself *out* of a thoroughgoing Trinitarian metaphysic, but, of course, being compelled (…by that attempt…) to embrace an ever widening array of reductions to absurdity, the metaphysic of the Triune *GOD* is – hands down – reason’s bliss. And if one recalls reason is, after all, where this whole journey started – out there – far from home – and now – finally – reason as truth-finder has found her delight – that of total rationalism – that of the ultimate and the self-explanatory – that of the uniquely triune metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility.
Reason has found, that is, her Groom. And with that she has found nothing less than Home.
Conclusion:
The Self-Explanatory and Ontic-Closure:
We come upon Mind, and Time, and Reference Frame, and the Absolute’s Reference Frame:
The nature of an ultimate self-explanatory principle presses in:
As for Time and Fact and Observer and Reference Frame, we know that time is neither eternal nor absolute (….time is neither the Absolute nor the absolute reference frame nor the Absolute’s Reference Frame.…). The Absolute’s frame of reference cannot *be* Self-Explanatory unless and until the Absolute is in fact Self-Referencing. We also know by both reason and logic that at the end of all explanatory termini we are forced into either [A] final absurdity or else [B] the Absolute’s reference frame, which must by necessity be Self-Reference, which is a metaphysical absurdity – but for the triune God who meets us in Genesis.
There is no frame of reference for “Self” but for the fact of “Other”, as the Absolute’s Self-Reference presses in:
The Self-Explanatory once again:
Ontic closure in Self-Reference, that is to say in the Divine Mind – in the irreducibly triune – in Trinity:
Reason and logic, and, as it so happens, love’s timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum, all compel us into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic.
In the Christian metaphysic as in no other genre on planet Earth reason discovers love’s timeless self-giving as Trinitarian processions await reason at the ends of all vectors such that should reason chase after some other constitution amid the unavoidable “one-another“, should reason chase after some other form or procession, then she would be (…factually…) “contra-reason”, or *un*reasonable. The rational is (…therein…) perfectly or ontologically seamless with the moral. That observation that the rational and the moral are in fact perfectly seamless is another way of expressing both the coherence and the explanatory power of Christian metaphysics.
Paradigmatically speaking, such is a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in any Non-Theism. The Golden Thread of Reciprocity” is affirmed by natural theology, is perceived by reason, is seen by Non-Theism, but Non-Theism must foist a metaphysical impossibility in order to claim her as irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory.
The thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic illuminates – explains – the root within the pains of our privation while simultaneously illuminating – explaining – our true good, our final felicity:
The perfection of love necessarily entails the perfection of reason, which itself entails the perfection of consciousness, which is the perfection of being. We are irreducibly relational beings and that is true for a reason, as in the Imago Dei, as in Trinity, as in the Good, as in nothing less than God.
A Thoroughly Trinitarian Metaphysic:
Part 1:
Beginning with reason, logic, and reality, we start far from home. Then, along the way, we follow reason as truth-finder as she [1] avoids reductions to absurdity and [2] satisfies her own relentless demands for lucidity. Then, by the end, we find ourselves within a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic.
So let’s start – far from home:
Whether it is QM or Atheism or Christianity or X or Y or Z, the issue is not uncertainty/certainty unless one wants to assume the unfortunate posture of defending what can only be a radical, opaque skepticism. Of course, the Christian is quite satisfied in these discussions when Non-Theists assume that unfortunate posture. The Christian there only needs to simply coach the Non-Theist further and further down the Non-Theist’s own wish-list of premises in that path and, when the Non-Theist finally embraces the manifestly absurd, it is a sort of intellectually satisfying “QED” for the Christian.
If uncertainty/certainty do not necessarily compel reason (…in her role as truth-finder…) then what will rationally (…and necessarily…) compel her? That’s obvious: the proverbial “Y” in the road is when and if one is forced to embrace this or that reductio ad absurdum – this or that reduction to absurdity.
The goal of reason as truth-finder is [1] avoiding reductions to absurdity and [2] satisfying reason’s demands for lucidity. On occasion our Non-Theist friends are confronted with that and they shout, “Sophistry! Pure sophistry!” but of course that’s not surprising given the Non-Theist’s (…somewhat common…) decision at that proverbial “Y” in the road.
As for the disagreements internal to Christianity, the entire array of peripheral topics which our Non-Theist’s point to are irrelevant to what defines Christianity’s metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility – or Christianity’s epicenter – (…as all vectors converge in Christ…<b). That is a substratum which our Non-Theist friends have not managed to negate – as too often all they’ve done in each attempt to negate that fountainhead is point to things outside of Christianity’s epicenter – which begs the question.
What everyone is left with is uncertainty in several layers, and certainty in several layers, and, so, that is all a proverbial “wash”. As in: Corrie ten Boom, no stranger to life’s unknowns, commented, “Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.” Faced with the challenge of the unknown, we rely on, trust in, the mathematics which we’ve every rational reason to trust as we face the challenge of, say, “…how to get X into orbit around the earth…” Like Corrie ten Boom and Mathematics, we trust in the known as we press forward into the unknown. Evidence based faith is the only kind the Christian metaphysic recognizes and for good reason: such comports with reality. And reality matters. There is the Known, there is the Unknown, and there is our trust in, reliance upon, faith in, the known as we work through reality’s array of often perplexing unknowns/problems.
That’s not complicated.
Therefore certainty/uncertainty cannot help us decide – or more precisely – certainty/uncertainty do not necessarily and rationally compel reason (…in her role as truth-finder…) into A vs. B. vs. C., as it were. But that’s old news. Everybody already knows that with respect to the nature of knowledge of reality (…on the one hand…) and the fundamental nature of reality (…on the other hand…).
All that is left then is that painful “Y” in the road between the forced reductio ad absurdum (…on the one hand…) and reason’s lucidity (…on the other hand…). Uncertainty never has disqualified a premise, but what is clear is that when this or that premise forces a reduction to absurdity, the premise itself is (then) rationally rejected. Reason’s relentless demands for lucidity press ever forward, outward, upward.
The fundamental nature of reason, logic, knowledge, and perception will always force our hands, whatever paradigm we may be working within. Regarding this or that “metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility”, no rational person intentionally embraces absurdity (…the proverbial reductio ad absurdum and so on…). The reach of the physical sciences (…on the one hand…) and of reason herself (…on the other hand…) are universally and fundamentally distinct, and distinction here does not mean wholly disconnected from one another, but simply means that they – and their respective reaches – are in a relevant sense different (….scientism being fallacious (etc.)….).
Knowledge just isn’t “physics-full-stop” (….methodological naturalism etc…) and the moment the Non-Theist attempts to claim that such *is* the definition of Knowledge is the moment reality’s universal and fundamental transcendentals come roaring in to dismantle his “.…cluster of tautological statements giving an appearance of a meaningful structure or system when stacked and leaned up against each other at various angles …. the resultant spaces providing the necessary illusion for pattern projecting subjects to go on to…..” (DNW) The Non-Theist and physicist Sean Carroll makes the attempt in his “The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself” and, bit by bit, the absurdity of “useful but not true” (…in various “layers” of “reality”…) subsumes all of his syntax.
Therein we find that one chooses, embraces, prefers – loves – absurdity over coherence , one chooses, embraces, prefers, loves, some contour of the ludicrous more than this or that contour of the lucid, one chooses the irrational over the rational. In short, there amid that unavoidable interface between self and truth the volitional man vis-à-vis the will of man invades the doxastic experience and displaces reason, hijacking the role of truth-finder and the rational man suffers yet another dive into he knows not what.
And there it is. QED.
That move by (too many) Non-Theists is hard evidence that one’s doxastic experience is fueled not “just” by evidence/reason, but also by other vectors subsumed within the intentional-being, within the being’s will, within taste and agenda. That the sky is blue may be a belief compelled such that one cannot deny it except by embracing the absurd, and yet the rationally compelled belief is *not* (…as is demonstrable…) constituted of “just” evidence/reason. If the price is sacred enough the Non-Theist will be telling us there is no such thing as blue, nor sky, nor sight, or I, nor self, nor even the utterance of “the sky is blue” nor even this very sentence one is reading for it – all of it – is you see but the absurd and the opaque, the “useful but not true”. You’re not reading this sentence. There is no sentence. There is no room for *you* to be *doing* anything there in nature’s four fundamental forces/waves which all layers ultimately reduce to, as all layers but one are ultimately and cosmically illusory. In fact, even the perception of our senses by which we organize nature’s four fundamental forces – and so on – are also subsumed by the illusory such that there is not even *one* layer which is “real”. It is *not* “…we know not what…” for there is no “we” nor “know” nor “what” nor “it”. Full Stop.
Continued…..