classical theism in essence views God as much greater than any created thing, the doctrine also seeks to view God as unable to be hurt by creation.
classical theism in todays Christianity however has been endlessly criticized and modified, being often replaced by theistic personalism.
classical theists believe that God is impassible, without potential and divinely simple, what these terms mean will be explained later on.
I do not think this issue is an issue over life and death, nor do I think that theistic personalists are going to the lake of fire. I believe it is possible to serve God and have a great reward in heaven without believing in classical theism, this is an issue of detail and not of life. However, I do think that the bible supports the classical views of God.
Divine Simplicity
Divine simplicity is the doctrine that every attribute of God is identical to Himself, having no parts. This means that God is not merely loving, but that He is love literally.
1 John 4:16 says: "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
Here we see John saying that God is identical to love, thus God is not made partially out of love but is love. A similar statement was made elsewhere in John's writings, as he says in 1 John 1:5 "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."
God is not merely "bright" but He is Light.
In Exodus 3:14 God is called the "I AM", this verse shows that God exists by Himself, He just "is", nothing caused God, God is "being" itself. However, if God was composed of many parts, those parts would cause God, thus God would not be self existent, which contradicts Exodus 3:14. God is truly "one" as Deuteronomy 6:4 says. The traditional doctrine of the trinity says that "God is three in persons, yet one in essence", what Deuteronomy 6:4 affirms is that God is one in His essence, but if God is made out of many parts, that would mean that God's essence is not "one" but many.
Romans 11:36 says "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things", this verse identifies God as the creator and cause of all things, however if God is made out of parts, that would mean God created his own parts. Though Paul did not have divine simplicity in mind while saying this, assuming that Paul did not believe divine simplicity, this wouldn't make much sense.
A less clear text that may be applied secondarily is Hebrews 12:29, which says "For our God is a consuming fire", Now if the words "consuming fire" refer to His perfect justice, the verse may be paraphrased as "God is justice", however I acknowledge this as a weak prooftext, however I may still lay it out there. Historically, some have argued that Jeremiah 23:6 identifies God with righteousness as the Hebrew literally says "YAHWEH our righteousness", however this too is not the most clear text.
God also does not have body parts, this is because "God is spirit" (John 4:24). When the bible mentions "the face of God", it's not a literal face but a reference to His presence. Same as when it mentions the "hands of God", it's an anthropomorphistic reference to His providence.
Pure Act
This is a theological term to mean God has no potentiality. This means that God is not potentially more loving tomorrow and less today, or potentially less just tomorrow. This is just a more detailed way to say that God does not change (Malachi 3:6). This means that God is always merciful, loving, kind, wise etc and does not go from being potentially kind to actually kind.
Theistic personalists have a more "loose" sense of what it means God cannot change, as they believe God does have potential to be more loving in one moment and less in another.
Divine timelessness
God is outside time, this is affirmed by the majority of Christians, however this has been denied by some theistic personalists such as William Lane Craig. The bible explicitly teaches this:
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day (2 Peter 3:8).
For thus says the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy (Isaiah 57:15).
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (Revelation 22:13).
Impassability
Now, here comes the most controversial part. The ones previously mentioned do not seem to cause much protest among Christians. Impassability means God is not subject to passions, thus He does not change his emotions due to what His creatures do. This doctrine thus means that God does not feel literal sorrow, anger, pain or empathy, but the mentions of these in the scriptures are anthropomorphistic. This doctrine is necessary to protect the fact that God cannot be hurt by anyone.
Now, even though this is an unpopular doctrine, we must stay faithful to the clear testimony of scripture. However, this doctrine does not make God a stoic, non-caring God and non-personal, in fact divine impassability never denied God's love, kindness, mercy, goodness, but instead says that God is equally loving at all times, never changing but always perfectly loving. However, individuals can stop experiencing His love by going away from Him.
Biblical evidence
Firstly when the Greeks in the book of Acts thought that Paul was divine, Paul objected by saying "we are men of like passions". Thus Paul's comment means something along the lines of: "do not worship us, because we have passions!", this means that Paul did not think the real God has passions:
Acts 14:15
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Wayne Grudem objected to the doctrine by saying that the Greek word "ὁμοιοπαθής" used here, may simply mean "of a like nature", however the word is defined by Strong's concordance as meaning "subject to like passions", and it comes from two Greek words "homiois" (like) and pascho (passion, suffering). Thus the point stands, Paul is explicitly saying that he is not to be worshipped because he has passions. James 5:17 similarly, seems to identify passions as something that belongs to humans (using the same Greek word) specifically, though not as clearly.
The Book of Hebrews also states that Christ's empathy is a property of His human nature, meaning that the reason why Christ feels empathy is because He is a man. This again shows clearly that the author of Hebrews believed that God in His divine nature does not have passions:
Hebrews 2:18
For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.
Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin
There is also contextual evidence that the "feelings" of God mentioned in the Old Testament are anthropomorphistic, Numbers 23 states:
19 “God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
20 Behold, I have received a command to bless;
He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it.
Now, Numbers 23 states that "God does not repent (change his mind)", but in other scriptures it says God "repented" (Jonah 3:10)? This is an anthropomorphism (or anthropopathism), God does not literally change his mind, but it looks like that in our perspective. The concept of "change of feelings" is similar to the concept of "changing one's mind", and it logically follows that the feelings described are analogous. This also shows that the biblical writers used anthropomorphistic language, and thus we can by using the contextual-historical hermeneutic argue that the biblical writers used this figure of speech when describing divine feelings.
Also, when the bible says God "regretted" making man (Genesis 6:6), it seems to also contextually necessities viewing it as an anthropopathism, because otherwise that would mean that God created something he did not ultimately want.
There are also other biblical arguments for impassability, which follow from other conclusions. For example, if God does not have potentiality and does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17), He does not change his mood either. If God knows the future and is outside time (Isaiah 57:15), wouldn't God be sorrowful all the time, as He always sees the evil deeds of people? If God can have literal sorrow, would that mean God merely saves us to take away his own pain from seeing us sin? Also, divine simplicity by necessity leads towards impassability, because if God is literally "being", He can have no potentiality, and as a change of feelings is going from potential to actuality, He is impassible. Thus, if we accept the arguments for divine simplicity, we must accept impassability. This is why William Lane Craig, Mullins and others deny this formation of divine simplicity, modifying it, this modified form of the doctrine would say: "Though God is not made of many parts, He is not literally identical to love, light, justice, righteousness, and John was not speaking literally by saying God is love".
Classical trinitarianism
Classical trinitarianism as opposed to social trinitarianism is a necessary result of the other classical doctrines, however it is possible to hold to a classical view of the trinity without believing in classical theism.
Social trinitarianism is a new form of trinitarianism, which has became more and more popular overtime. In this article I seek to establish the biblical basis for the classical trinitarian view, and as a result I critique the social trinitarian view. Social trinitarians often believe that God has three minds, three wills, three centers of emotion and of consciousness, having a more loose sense of the unity of God. While I see social trinitarianism as intellectually tempting due to it being much easier to comprehend, we should not decide doctrines on the basis of which one is easier to understand.
God has one mind
The scriptures also speak of God's mind and will in the singular, implying only one mind within God, such as Paul in Romans 11:34 says “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? There are also many texts which speak of one will in God (Romans 12:2, 1 Thessalonians 5:18, John 7:17). Yet as we are not unitarian, we can say that the one divine will and mind is "operated" by three agents (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit), God having one mind doesn't deny the trinity.
Because there is only one will in God, it would mean that there is no submission. The verses which speak of submission should be interpreted as Christ in his human nature (Christ had two natures, one human one divine and as will is an aspect of nature, he had two wills). Thus Christ submits to the Father in His human will but not in His divine will. This is affirmed by Paul in Philippians 2:8:
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
If Christ "became" obedient, it means there was a time where no subordination existed.
Three persons
The trinity means that there is one God, yet three persons. The word "person" might be slightly misleading, as its semantic meaning has changed overtime, which is why some theologians want to change the word to "subsistence" (which is literal translation of the Greek word "hypostasis" used in the Nicean creed), however the word "subsistence" does not mean much to the average English speaker and may sound too "fancy". The problem is that human language often is problematic in describing divine truths. A very short description of the word "person" or "subsistence" would mean is "who", or "I" (self distinctions), there are three "I"s in one God. We see in the bible clearly that there are three persons, for example the Father "sends" the Son (1 John 4:14), in a modalist system that would make no sense. Yet, to go into detail, the Bible teaches that the three persons are distinguished by relations of origin (a theological concept to describe begetting and spiration).
The Son is eternally begotten from the Father. This is a hard doctrine to understand, yet it is clearly affirmed in the bible. To get an idea of what the doctrine means, here is a quote from A.A Hodge, from His "Outlines of Theology":
“The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.”
There are multiple texts which affirm this doctrine. Firstly, the mere fact of being called the "Son" implies begetting, yet as Christ has been eternally the Son, He must have been eternally begotten. Now, opponents of classical trinitarianism often argue that Christ became the Son by becoming a human, however as Christ is called "Son" prior to the incarnation in the Old Testament (Proverbs 30:4), we can safely say that Christ's sonhood is not grounded in the incarnation. However, there are explicit texts to affirm this doctrine:
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 5:26, “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”
John 6:57-58, “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever.”
Another text to explicitly affirm this doctrine is Hebrews 1:3 which says:
3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Sam Shamoun comments on this text: "There are several points which we can glean from this very crucial text. The first point is that Jesus is the very exact imprint, the very exact copy, the perfect reflection of God’s own substance, nature, essence etc. That is the meaning of the Greek word charakter, that Jesus is the precise and perfect imprint left by the Original or the Source. The author of Hebrews is basically saying that the Father is the underived Source of all Deity with the Son being the perfect duplicate of that Deity. If God’s substance is eternal, then Christ must be eternal also since he is the exact imprint. If God’s substance is infinite, then Christ must also be infinite seeing that he is the exact copy of it."
A similar point is made in Colossians 1:15, which calls the Son the "image" of God.
Another text that is more ambiguous is Proverbs 8, which describing wisdom says: "I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.", some believe that Paul the apostle connected this text to Jesus by saying that Jesus is the "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24), yet I believe this to be a bit ambiguous and not the strongest text to use.
Similarly, the Holy Spirit eternally "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, as John 15:26 states:
But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
Most theologians in the west also believe that He proceeds from the Son as well, as the scriptures call the Holy Spirit "The Spirit of Christ" (the genitive "of" often means "from" in Greek). Jesus also "breathes forth" the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) and the Holy Spirit is sent "in the name of the Son" John 14:26. Commentators have also noticed that Revelation 21:1 seems to be a representation of the trinity. Revelation 22:1 talks about a river of the water of life "flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb", now this text describes a literal river, yet the river is meant to represent the Holy Spirit (as water is commonly used to symbolize the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)), Who "flows" from the Father and the Son.
Theologians have also often asked "how do generation and spiration work", some have argued from the fact that Christ is called the "logos" (word, thought) and the "Wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24) and the "image of God" in Colossians, the eternal generation of the Son is by means of intellect. Meaning, the eternal generation of the Son happens through the Father knowing himself, meaning he has the perfect idea or image of himself. From the same logic, it has been argued that since there seems to be a special identification with the Holy Spirit and love ( 2 Samuel 7:15, Rom 5:5, Romans 15:30) along with the Holy Spirit being compared with the dove (Luke 3:22), the dove being used in Jewish contexts for love (Song of Solomon 5:2), that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the mutual love of the Father and the Son. Now, while I think this may be the best way to explains these two concepts, I do not think it is so clear that we should make it dogmatic. However, the reasoning behind these seems possible, and I would accept it as true.
The reason why eternal generation and eternal procession are important is because if we deny those and we ask "how do we tell the persons apart", we will have no answer, yet eternal generation and procession gives us this answer.
The three persons are distinguished by relations, not by difference in will or mind.
It is not borrowed from Greek philosophy
William Lane Craig has argued that this doctrine is borrowed from Greek philosophy, however this is untrue. While some advocates of the doctrine like Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), may have relied too much on Aristotle and Greek philosophers, the fact is that Aquinas did not invent classical theism and is not the only representative of it. The doctrine was affirmed by Christians as early as Irenaeus (130 – 202), Augustine (4-5th centuries), Athenagoras (133 - 190ad), Origen (184-253ad), Hilary of Poitiers (310-367ad), Ambrose of Milan (340-397ad) along with many others. It is also affirmed among the Jews, by Philo (20 – 50ad), Maimonides (1138–1204) and others.
Just because Aquinas may have relied too much on Greek concepts to defend the doctrine, does not mean it is entirely derived from Greek philosophy. This is one of the worst forms of the genetic fallacy, even worse when it did not begin with Aquinas.
No comments:
Post a Comment