Thinking about how monotheism and Trinitarianism are both true can sometimes feel like trying to complete the final piece of a puzzle while blindfolded. It might feel like just one, last piece would complete the puzzle, but there are several pieces within arms reach that could be tested to fit the final, missing space of the puzzle.
Now, tangibly speaking, a blindfolded person can ascertain that there are certain things that can be known about the missing piece, such as the edges it should have. But suppose several pieces seem to fit the same space. I try one piece, and since it had the wrong edges, I discard it. I another piece, and it seems to fit the puzzle. How exciting! But then I try another, just to be safe... and it also seems to fit!
Perhaps some pieces ended up in the wrong puzzle box. These pieces don't match the picture of my puzzle at all, even if they may seem to fit. Since I am blindfolded, I can't see the puzzle to determine that each piece I try also matches the holistic art of the puzzle itself. But I do know that a puzzle isn't just about fitting in pieces into places. That is, a puzzle is about fitting pieces that should be able to form an intelligible picture which could be recognized if my blindfold was taken off.
Now, I think there must still be a way to determine which piece is correct. Let's imagine this puzzle being multi-layered in that every piece of the puzzle has bumps on it such that if I fit the correct piece into the missing spot, a blindfolded person such as myself could conceivably confirm the piece is correct by reading an intelligible message in Braille. The problem I face now is that I don't know how to read Braille, so I have to learn that first.
Cashing this analogy out, the picture of the puzzle box I am attempting to construct is the reality, and my epistemic quest is to reconstruct this picture. That is, it may initially seem like there are multiple possible Trinitarian models coherent with biblical revelation. However, this can't be.
Cashing this analogy out, the picture of the puzzle box I am attempting to construct is the reality, and my epistemic quest is to reconstruct this picture. That is, it may initially seem like there are multiple possible Trinitarian models coherent with biblical revelation. However, this can't be.
Sure, there may be obvious respects in which models may be similar. And, to a certain point, all puzzlers or believers should have the same pieces or beliefs: the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons; these persons are consubstantial; there is one God. These puzzle pieces are fundamental to the construction of an intelligible puzzle.
But further attempt to harmonize these truths will appeal to a puzzle piece or belief that might have the same edges as the missing spot in the puzzle. Each seems to fit... in a tactile sense. At the moment - and I'll speak for myself - I can't see the whole picture well enough to determine which piece or model is correct.
I do think, though, there must be a way to determine which model is correct (or if there might even be another similarly edged model I have not yet "grasped"). This is, I admit, just an intuition, perhaps based on that I think I have already grasped several pieces whose edges have seemed to fit the other pieces.
I do think, though, there must be a way to determine which model is correct (or if there might even be another similarly edged model I have not yet "grasped"). This is, I admit, just an intuition, perhaps based on that I think I have already grasped several pieces whose edges have seemed to fit the other pieces.
For those who sympathize with this metaphor, "Braille" might refer to any number of things. For my part, I think I need a better understanding of exegetical and metaphysical underpinnings of issues related to Trinitarian discussions. Before I declare a piece is correct, I want more evidence that the Braille message yielded by a given model is intelligible. That means I have to learn more about Braille before I can resolve the puzzle to my satisfaction.
Another reason I use this illustration, though, is to caution against a rushed interpretation of any script one thinks has formed an intelligible message. Don't get me wrong: the puzzle-piecing process is a good thing. It sharpens our minds and orients us toward good things. In fact, I rather enjoy the puzzle piecing process. That's probably one reason God has set these questions before us as He has - albeit questions which command our caution, attention, and reverence. Conversation we have with other believers helps, as I think it's meant to.
But we also ought to be faithful in piecing together what parts of the puzzle we can during the time in which we are given - carefully discarding false doctrine as it comes - rather than treating the process as a time-clock scenario in which our salvation depends on our having a completed puzzle. A piece with the wrong bumps is just as false as one with the wrong edges, and the former requires even more care. For while we may be blindfolded in this life, we shall see the truth more clearly in the next.
The parable of the talents shows how sorry we will be if we are lazy and apathetic towards our Master. This scenario hopefully shows how sorry we will be if we are overzealous.
Hey Ryan, it’s been a while. Have you read “Simply Trinity” by Matthew Barrett or “All That is In God” by James Dolezal?
ReplyDeleteHi Patrick,
ReplyDeleteNo, although I have heard of both. I have read Dolezal's "God Without Parts" and found James Anderson's comments to align with my own thoughts:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/god-without-parts-divine-simplicity-and-the-metaphysics-of-gods-absolutenes/
I read a review of Matthew Barrett's book a while ago:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/simply-trinity-barrett.105698/
And I interact with the reviewer (who you might know) on divine simplicity here:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/the-trinity-thomas-joseph-white.109233/#post-1314706
I have had other, recent conversations about divine simplicity here:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/polanus-on-autotheos-and-the-generation-of-the-son.109512/#post-1318226
https://puritanboard.com/threads/christian-doctrine-of-god-one-being-three-persons-torrance.110077/#post-1324448
The 15th post in the last link is one I have meant to return to and consider, but I sometimes abruptly change my reading and writing patterns.
I have Gerald Bray's "The Doctrine of God" in my queue. Several parts of the realist doctrine of original sin overlap with thoughts I have on Trinitarianism, but as I am only recently coming to grips with the former, I have not fleshed out their relation to the latter (if any).
Gotcha. I highly recommend both of the books I mentioned, and I think they sufficiently answer most if not all of the questions you raise on the PB and back in 2012 with Sean Gerety et al. Confessing the Impassible God is another great book. Hope you find them edifying whenever you get to them on your to-read list, haha
ReplyDeleteSounds interesting, I'll put them on the neverending list. So you think that both books collectively answer James Anderson's following concerns?
ReplyDelete"How can God’s simplicity be reconciled with his freedom? If God is identical to his own will, including his will to create the world, how could his will be contingent in any real sense? Doesn’t DDS entail that God necessarily wills to create? Whatever theological merits DDS might have, sacrificing God’s freedom seems far too high a price to pay! ... Dolezal concedes that a residual problem persists: it’s very difficult to conceive of God’s free will in a way that it doesn’t imply some kind of movement from potentiality to actuality. In the end, Dolezal appeals to divine incomprehensibility: “Though we discover strong reasons for confessing both simplicity and freedom in God [viz., both are required by the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo], we cannot form an isomorphically adequate notion of how this is the case. In fact, this confession of ignorance is precisely what one finds in the Thomist and Reformed traditions.” I’m sympathetic to this move, but I wish a little more had been said about what justifies an appeal to divine incomprehensibility in this instance, given that theologians presumably don’t have carte blanche to play the mystery card at any time in order to excuse apparent incoherencies in their positions...
I must note that God without Parts does almost nothing to address two common objections to DDS from confessional Protestants. The first is that the doctrine lacks biblical support: it’s a speculation wrapped in a deduction inside an extrapolation, one might say. For Roman Catholics, who hold a higher view of church tradition, that isn’t much of a concern. (There’s always the Fourth Lateran Council, which in 1215 canonized the claim that God is “absolutely simple.”) But for theologians committed to sola scriptura, the prima facie lack of biblical support is troubling. One solution here is to argue that DDS may be deduced “by good and necessary consequence” (WCF 1.6) from the biblical teaching about God’s attributes, particularly divine aseity. Dolezal points us to this approach in the introduction to chapter 3, but other than a passing reference in chapter 1 to Exod 3:14–15 (traditionally viewed as a proof-text for DDS), little else is said about the biblical support for the doctrine or even about the putative need for such support. (An alternative approach would be to argue that DDS is a legitimate piece of natural theology.)
The second objection to DDS is that it conflicts with the doctrine of the Trinity. Consider the answer to Question 9 of the Westminster Larger Catechism: “There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.” On the face of it the catechism is teaching us that each of the persons is the one God, yet there are still real distinctions between them, and those distinctions are grounded in their possession of unique properties. The problem is this: DDS seems to rule out both real distinctions within God and the possession of properties by God (compare the discussion of divine attributes in chapter 5)."
How do you now view the doctrine of God in relation to Gordon Clark's metaphysical view of persons? I found an article last year by Clark you might find interesting:
https://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2022/07/gordon-clark-james-daanes-freedom-of.html
I apologized to Sean and Doug last year for various immaturities. They were gracious. I don't recall if I acted wrongly towards you, but if so, I'm sorry for that.