This is a kind of continuation of my blogpost here: The Purpose of This Blog
I'm open to various Trinitarian formulations. I'm not dogmatic on any one view. I think there's room for disagreement among Trinitarians because while the Bible (IMO) teaches some form of Trinitarianism, it is underdeterminative regarding which version is correct. The Bible just doesn't provide enough information for us to confidently determine which view is correct or closest to correct. That the Bible doesn't fully disclose all the intricacies of the Trinity might be due to our inability to understand it due ot our finitude. In which case, God might reveal just enough that we can have some grasp of the Godhead sufficient for our worship of the Deity and our salvation. While I'm open to various Trinitarian formulations and not dogmatic on any particular one, it does seem to me that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. There are also Unitarian views which I reject on the basis of Biblical revelation. Since the Bible does seem to teach the fully deity/divinity of the Son and Spirit and the genuine distinction between all three persons of the divine triad.
The following is my description on some of the options and what I find to be their strengths and weakness. Since my understanding of the variations and permutations of Trinitarian formulations is limited, my analyses will necessarily be based on my finite understanding. I'm still growing in my understanding in these issues. I'm only an amateur theologian.
Both Arianism and Semi-Arianism seem to be unbiblical. Arianism seems false because it has the Son [or also the Spirit] as created "from" or "of" nothing. Indisputedly making the Son a [or also the Spirit] creature[s]. While Semi-Arianism denies that the Son [or also Spirit] are created from/of nothing because the Son [or also the Spirit] in some sense derives from the the Father's nature/essence [which is an improvement on Arianism], the nature and essence of the Son [or also the Spirit] is[/are] not truly divine. In which case the Son [or also the Spirit] STILL falls the creature side of the Creator and creature divine/distinction.
Nicene Monarchism as understood/defined by David Waltz is an attempt to return to what the Council of Nicaea believed about the triad. See Waltz' blog here:https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/
Again, I'm not sure just how much I understand these options, but with the level I think I do, my criticism of Nicene Monarchism is that while it affirms the true personal distinctions and divinity of the Son and Spirit, its apparent weakness is that it denies true the unity of the Godhead as to essence. It's a marked improvement on Arianism and Semi-Arianism, and I'm open th Nicene Monarchy, but I think other views do better justice to the true unity of the Godhead.
The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is also a position I'm open to. However, like Nicene Monarchy, it's open to the criticism of not fully affirming the true unity of the Godhead or even denying it. Nor does it [or at least doesn't seem to be able to] explain the difference between the generation/filiation of the Son and the spiration/procession of the Holy Spirit. Without the filioque, difference/distinction seems arbitrary and unexplained. Under the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, why aren't both the second and third person of the Trinity generated? Why aren't they both Sons of God so that God has two Sons? Or why aren't both the second and third person of the Trinity spirated so that God has two Holy Spirits? While I'm open to the filioque being false, I lean toward it for at least one reason. It gives some explantion for why the derivation of the second and third persons of the Trinity are different. The second person of the Trinity derives from the Father, and the third person of the Trinity derives from the Father and the Son [or from the Father through the Son]. But again, the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is susceptible to the charge of tritheism as is Nicene Monarchy.
It seems to me that the view that all three persons of the Trinity sharing the same identical nature does most justice to the unity of God and of monotheism, than conceptions of the triad whereby each of the three have differing and distinct types and individual essences and/or natures.
There are Evangelical conceptions of the Trinity that have three persons share the one being of God. William Lane Craig's view is among them. If I'm not mistaken, Craig's willing to understand and refer to the persons of the Trinity as three centers of consciousnesses [or something equivalent if he doesn't use that term]. The problem is that Craig denies the doctrine of the eternal generation/filiation of the Son and the eternal procession/spiration of the Holy Spirit. While I'm open to a view that denies both doctrines, doing so gives no explanation as to why there are differences between the person of the Trinity. As a Trinitarian, I reject on Biblical grounds the ontological subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the ontological subordination of the Spirit to the Son and/or the Father. I'm also open to a denial of ERAS/ESS/EFS. Though, I lean toward them [i.e. Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission/Eternal Subordination of the Son/Eternal Functional Subordination] because that's what the Bible seems to teach as well as the early church fathers. If Craig's view is correct, why does the Bible seem to teach the eternal, even ante-creational, subordination of the Son and Spirit in the ontological/immanent Trinity [again sans creation]? Given Craig's view, why doesn't the Bible present the persons of the Trinity as three identical triplets? Instead, Scripture presents the eternal Fatherhood of the Father, the eternal Sonship of the Son, and the eternal Spirit of God and of the Son.
The positive of variations of Modalism is that it affirms the true unity of God. The negative problem of Modalism is that it denies the true and genuine distinctions of the persons of the Trinity, making God unipersonal, rather than truly multi-personal/pluri-personal/tri-personal.
With Latin Trinitarianism usual affirmation of *absolute* divine simplicity in the vein of Thomism, it attempts to affirm both the unity and triadic nature of Trinity. But because of its conception of ABSOLUTE divine simplicity, its affirmation of the persons of God as subsistencies seems to only give lip service to the genuine plurality of God. If a criticism that could potentially be leveled against the Eastern Orthodox conception of the Trinity is that of apparent Crypto-Semi-Arianism [crypto meaning "secret" or "hidden"], then on the oppose side Latin Trinitarianism could potentially be charged with Crypto-Sabellianism/Modalism.
Where does that leave me? Most of the above are my outer or peripheral options. The following are my inner preferred options. As I said, I'm open to many of the options and permutations I've listed above among others I didn't mention [with the stated exception of Unitarian versions I automatically reject like Arianism and Semi-Arianism, etc.]. But my default view seems to be that of affirming ERAS of the Father, Son and Spirit who all share the one/singular identical being/essence/substance of the Godhead and where the PERSONS OF Son and Spirit [to the exclusion of their essences] eternally derive from the Father with an affirmation of something like the filioque whereby the being of God is singular and underived. Traditionally, the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit involves BOTH their 1. person and 2. being/essence/substance. But there has been some in the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition that affirmed only the persons proceeding from the Father, while their substances not being derived. The persons share the one/singular being of God. That makes a lot of sense to me. With the persons each being a center of consciousness [even though some Trinitarians resist or reject that conception and terminology]. To use a human analogy with human consciousness, the Father could be analogous to the consciousness of God, the Son the reflective SELF-consciousness of God, and the Holy Spirit the self-WORTH and affectional approbation of God regarding God. Jonathan Edwards makes a similar case in his classic Unpublished Essay on the Trinity. I've come to my conclusions [or preferences] because of that essay. The main difference is that Edwards does seem to affirm a genuine distinction and derivation of the substances/essences of the Son and Spirit [but I could be mistaken in my interpretation of Edwards].
I'm also open to the persons [i.e. centers of consciousness] AND essence of God being both timelessly eternal, OR being both temporally eternal. Or split so that the persons [i.e. centers of consciousness] are temporally eternal WHILE the essence of God being timelessly eternal. These inner options and permutations seem to have all the pros I want, while avoiding all the cons I want to avoid. They affirm both the true unity of God, and the true plurality of God. They don't affirm unity of God to the unintended denial of the genuine plurality of God. Nor do they affirm the plurality of God to the unintended denial of the unity of God. They affirm the genuine distinctions of the persons, while also giving some explanation as to their distinctions. They also give some explanation to the heirarchy of the persons, while affirming their genuine equality. Rather than affirming a blank equality that leaves unexplained the differences and relations of authority and submission. All the while denying ontological subordination in their affirmation of functional subordination.They explain why the relations are described in the Bible as sans creation [i.e. "before" and APART from creation]. My views can always change. Hopefully, they are constantly refining. But this is how I see things at present.
No comments:
Post a Comment