I recently was asked to review the new
book
Grand Central Question: Answering the Critical Concerns of the Major
Worldviews written by Abdu Murray and published by InterVarsity Press. Unlike some other works that help instruct Christians
to the task of defending the faith, Grand Central Question doesn't focus so much
on objections and answers. Instead, Murray begins using a much broader
perspective; he compares the worldviews of secular humanism, eastern religions
and concepts of
pantheism, and Islam against the Christian worldview. As our culture travels
further and further from its Judeo-Christian roots, Murray's book is timely and
important in providing the reader with key points of engagement.
Murray lays
out his goal in Grand Central Question early. Following Ravi Zacharias, he
defines a worldview as an overarching belief system that must cogently answer
the four questions of 1) Why do we exist, 2) Is there a purpose to human life,
3) What
accounts for the human condition, and 4) Is there something better than what we now
experience. These four questions make up Murray's rubric to weigh the three
primary worldviews above and see how they compare to the Christian position.
He does a fine job of confronting secular humanism, providing many quotes and
comments from leading proponents such as Dawkins, Singer, Hawking and others. He
also pulls from the different Humanist Manifesto statements, which serve as the
closest thing to humanism's scripture since Darwin's Origin of Species. Next,
Murray turns his gaze eastward. While he talks about Eastern views such as
Hinduism, Buddhism, and other pantheistic faiths, his primary focus is on the
Western understanding of these belief systems, and thus he covers New Age
spirituality and even Scientology in his critique. The last area, and the one
most well-developed, is the section on Islam. This is natural as Murray is a
former Muslim himself and he holds key insights into both the Muslim and
Christian understanding of reality.
Murray's background is that of a lawyer,
and it shows through in his exploration of idea as well as seeking out the
motives of holding those ideas. The real power of the book, though, is not
in the detached arguments for or against a position, but in Murray's emphasis on
the human cost in holding to or changing one's belief. Even in the first
chapter, he tells of visiting a Muslim man who may be dying, but while
Christianity appealed to him, he was deeply concerned with losing his children
and their respect. This is truly where apologetics meets evangelism. Sometimes,
one can get caught up in all the arguments and counter-arguments and forget
that there are real, flesh and blood human beings who will really suffer if they
were to leave their current religion to follow Christ. Murray continues to
remind us that even in the 21st century counting all things as loss for the sake
of Christ can be very difficult, as the loss may be extreme.
The book is an
easy read and not too long, weighing in at 244 pages plus notes. Murray's
anecdotes and examples prove to be good illustrations of conversational
apologetics in practice, giving his readers a more clear view of the different
aspects sharing ones' faith make take. Murray provides comparison tables to
counter some of the Muslim claims of biblical corruption or that Jesus taught
something different than Paul. He also takes the last two chapters to make the
concept of the trinity and the idea of Christ's incarnation accessible,
especially to a Muslim mind.
In all, I think
Grand Central Question
is an
important work. There is no debate that we live in a post-Christian society.
That means our apologetics cannot begin with the Bible, but must begin further
back at the level of primary assumptions on how the world works. Abdu
Murray has done a great job of helping the reader lay that foundation in
conversational contexts. I find it a fine addition to the thoughtful Christian's
library.
Home > Apologetics-Notes Blog
Blog Archive
Followers
Come Reason's Apologetics Notes blog will highlight various news stories or current events and seek to explore them from a thoughtful Christian perspective. Less formal and shorter than the www.comereason.org Web site articles, we hope to give readers points to reflect on concerning topics of the day.
Powered by Blogger.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Is the Trinity a Contradiction?
In my recent series on the essential beliefs
of Christianity, I received a comment from a reader who claimed that I hadn't
offered a cogent argument for the Trinity. This isn't the first time I've heard
the claim that the Trinity is a contradictory concept. The doctrine of the
Trinity has been challenged by everyone from Jehovah's Witnesses to Muslims as
contradictory.
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
These two premises are not really controversial. But we can know something else about Socrates by looking at them:
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
This conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. There is no escaping it. Socrates is part of the set "all men" and if everyone in the set of all men are mortal, Socrates must be mortal, too.
But what if I make an additional claim about Socrates, such as:
3. Socrates is immortal
If I assert premises #1, #2, and #3, I would have a contradiction. Socrates cannot be both mortal (from #1 and #2) and immortal (from #3) at the same time and in the same manner. Premise #3 could of course not be talking about the physical body of Socrates but referring to his work. In such a case, statement #3 holds no bearing on the other two statements, since they are completely different concepts. But if statement #3 means immortal in the same sense that statement #1 does, then Socrates cannot be a man and immortal because it would mean that Socrates is mortal and while he is at the same time the opposite of mortal. Both cannot possibly be true.
1. If the doctrine of the Trinity defines God as being both one and more than one at the same time and in the same manner then it is contradictory and therefore false.
Next, we declare that God is monotheistic. This is a staple of Christian belief:
2. There is one God.
But Christianity teaches of a plurality within God. Supported by scripture, it makes the claim that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can express themselves differently. The Son may pray to the Father or submit to His will. The Father may send the Spirit, and so on. But they are each called God. So, we get another premise:
3. The person of the Father is God, the person of the Son is God, and ;the person of Holy Spirit is God.
4. Therefore, God is one being comprised of the persons of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit (from 2,3).
If we are to now claim that the Father is a being, the Son is a being, and the Holy Spirit is a being, we would have a contradiction. You would have God is three beings and God is one being. Certainly both cannot be true. However, that is not the Christian doctrine. The Christian doctrine is that God is one being comprised of three persons. In my last post I showed how personhood is separate from being. We can create a sub argument here from the facts of that post:
5a. Personhood is not the same as being if the number of persons of an entity differs from the number of beings present in itself.
5b. A plant is an entity whose number of persons (zero) differs from the number of beings (one) present in itself.
5c. Therefore, personhood is not the same as being.
So, because we've clarified the concept of personhood and being, we can add an additional proposition to our argument:
6. Therefore, God can be one being comprised of a different number of persons without contradiction (from 4,5c).
7. Therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradictory ( from 1,6)
By arguing thusly, one can see that the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradictory. One must add additional premises to the argument, and those premises must properly reflect Christian doctrine.
What is a Contradiction?
A contradiction occurs when someone asserts a claim resulting in the conclusion that A does not equal A at the same time and in the same way. To briefly understand what I mean, take this well-worn example of a syllogism:1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
These two premises are not really controversial. But we can know something else about Socrates by looking at them:
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
This conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. There is no escaping it. Socrates is part of the set "all men" and if everyone in the set of all men are mortal, Socrates must be mortal, too.
But what if I make an additional claim about Socrates, such as:
3. Socrates is immortal
If I assert premises #1, #2, and #3, I would have a contradiction. Socrates cannot be both mortal (from #1 and #2) and immortal (from #3) at the same time and in the same manner. Premise #3 could of course not be talking about the physical body of Socrates but referring to his work. In such a case, statement #3 holds no bearing on the other two statements, since they are completely different concepts. But if statement #3 means immortal in the same sense that statement #1 does, then Socrates cannot be a man and immortal because it would mean that Socrates is mortal and while he is at the same time the opposite of mortal. Both cannot possibly be true.
The Argument Against Contradiction
Since we know now what it takes to call an idea contradictory, we can use this understanding to see if the Trinity fits the definition of a contradiction.1. If the doctrine of the Trinity defines God as being both one and more than one at the same time and in the same manner then it is contradictory and therefore false.
Next, we declare that God is monotheistic. This is a staple of Christian belief:
2. There is one God.
But Christianity teaches of a plurality within God. Supported by scripture, it makes the claim that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can express themselves differently. The Son may pray to the Father or submit to His will. The Father may send the Spirit, and so on. But they are each called God. So, we get another premise:
3. The person of the Father is God, the person of the Son is God, and ;the person of Holy Spirit is God.
4. Therefore, God is one being comprised of the persons of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit (from 2,3).
If we are to now claim that the Father is a being, the Son is a being, and the Holy Spirit is a being, we would have a contradiction. You would have God is three beings and God is one being. Certainly both cannot be true. However, that is not the Christian doctrine. The Christian doctrine is that God is one being comprised of three persons. In my last post I showed how personhood is separate from being. We can create a sub argument here from the facts of that post:
5a. Personhood is not the same as being if the number of persons of an entity differs from the number of beings present in itself.
5b. A plant is an entity whose number of persons (zero) differs from the number of beings (one) present in itself.
5c. Therefore, personhood is not the same as being.
So, because we've clarified the concept of personhood and being, we can add an additional proposition to our argument:
6. Therefore, God can be one being comprised of a different number of persons without contradiction (from 4,5c).
7. Therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradictory ( from 1,6)
By arguing thusly, one can see that the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradictory. One must add additional premises to the argument, and those premises must properly reflect Christian doctrine.
Labels:
attributes of God,
bible contradictions,
logic,
theology,
Trinity
Monday, May 19, 2014
A Christian Must Believe in the Trinity
In this recent series, I've been
working through some of the essential beliefs that identify someone as a
Christian. Previous posts have discussed Christianity as a
monotheistic faith. We believe there is only one God who has ever existed
throughout all of reality. But monotheism isn't exclusive to Christianity. Most
people will recognize that Judaism and Islam are also monotheistic.
Christians hold to a very unique type of monotheism. We've also talked about how
Christianity
holds to the divinity of Jesus, but that Jesus is not the same
being as God the Father. In order to be considered a Christian, one must believe
that Jesus is God the Son.
At first glance, it seems that the two statements are contradictory. There is only one God, yet there is God the Father and God the Son and one is not the other. To explain exactly how this works, though, has tongue-tied many people throughout the centuries. Add to this another complication as Christians also believe the Holy Spirit is God, and yet He is distinct from the Father and from the Son. How can such a seemingly illogical position be true? The answer lies in the concept of the Trinity,
However, it isn't always the case that the attributes of a being are the same as the attributes of a person. To prove my case, let's proceed downward rather than upward. When Tertullian talks about a being, he means that there is one substance that makes up the entity of God. When we look at our own bodies, we see that every part that properly belongs to our body should be considered human. Every cell is a human cell. We are made up of human "stuff" if you will. Similarly, every part that makes up a plant is "plant stuff." A plant is also a being; it is a living thing that exists. But no one would claim that a plant is a person. That would be foolish!
So, we have two cases here. We recognize a plant as a being, but it has no personhood within it. It has a personhood count of zero, if you will. We also recognize a human as a being that has a personhood count of one. This means that personhood is different from being, as a being can exist without personhood. It then follows that it isn't contradictory to say that God is a being with a personhood count of three. It may be the case that we see no parallel here on earth, it may be the case that there is no other being in all of reality that can claim multiple personhood. However, it is clear that the claim of one being in three persons is not a contradiction, any more than claiming a plant is a being with no personhood should be considered such.
Beyond the reconciliation of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity holds additional advantages. I've argued this before, but it is through the relationship within the Trinity that God can be considered completely without need. Only a being like the Trinity can be all-loving, and only within a trinity can God express His own humility.
Of course, no one can say exactly how all the aspects of the three-in-one work. That shouldn't be a surprise, though. Scientists today have really good data on quantum models of matter, but you don't have to be able to explain all aspect of quantum mechanics to believe it's true. When talking about God, one is referring to a being that transcends humanity; therefore one should expect that there would be aspects to His nature beyond our comprehension. But that doesn't mean that we cannot apprehend the basic understanding of the Trinity. God is three persons who comprise one being and each is fully God.
At first glance, it seems that the two statements are contradictory. There is only one God, yet there is God the Father and God the Son and one is not the other. To explain exactly how this works, though, has tongue-tied many people throughout the centuries. Add to this another complication as Christians also believe the Holy Spirit is God, and yet He is distinct from the Father and from the Son. How can such a seemingly illogical position be true? The answer lies in the concept of the Trinity,
The Trinity – What is it?
To describe the Christian belief of the Trinity is actually quite simple, but it takes a bit of careful thinking to make sure the concept is properly understood. To say God is a Trinity is to say that God is one being comprised of three persons. The term "Trinity" was first used for the three persons comprising God by the early Church father Tertullian around AD 200.1 Tertullian saw a distinction between what it means to be a person and what it means to be a being. Our difficulty today is primarily because most people think the terms are synonymous. We see a person and we say that the person is a human being. One person = one being.However, it isn't always the case that the attributes of a being are the same as the attributes of a person. To prove my case, let's proceed downward rather than upward. When Tertullian talks about a being, he means that there is one substance that makes up the entity of God. When we look at our own bodies, we see that every part that properly belongs to our body should be considered human. Every cell is a human cell. We are made up of human "stuff" if you will. Similarly, every part that makes up a plant is "plant stuff." A plant is also a being; it is a living thing that exists. But no one would claim that a plant is a person. That would be foolish!
So, we have two cases here. We recognize a plant as a being, but it has no personhood within it. It has a personhood count of zero, if you will. We also recognize a human as a being that has a personhood count of one. This means that personhood is different from being, as a being can exist without personhood. It then follows that it isn't contradictory to say that God is a being with a personhood count of three. It may be the case that we see no parallel here on earth, it may be the case that there is no other being in all of reality that can claim multiple personhood. However, it is clear that the claim of one being in three persons is not a contradiction, any more than claiming a plant is a being with no personhood should be considered such.
The Trinity – Its Necessity
The Bible clearly recognizes God the Father as God. That claim is usually not disputed. However, as I mentioned last time, it also recognizes Jesus as God and it identifies the Holy Spirit as God, too (Matt. 28:19, Acts 5:3,5, Isa 63:10, 1 Cor. 2:10-11). These three persons are each recognized as fully God and yet God is one. If one denies the triune nature of God, then one is forced into denying some portion of scripture.Beyond the reconciliation of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity holds additional advantages. I've argued this before, but it is through the relationship within the Trinity that God can be considered completely without need. Only a being like the Trinity can be all-loving, and only within a trinity can God express His own humility.
Of course, no one can say exactly how all the aspects of the three-in-one work. That shouldn't be a surprise, though. Scientists today have really good data on quantum models of matter, but you don't have to be able to explain all aspect of quantum mechanics to believe it's true. When talking about God, one is referring to a being that transcends humanity; therefore one should expect that there would be aspects to His nature beyond our comprehension. But that doesn't mean that we cannot apprehend the basic understanding of the Trinity. God is three persons who comprise one being and each is fully God.
References
1. Carl, Harold F. Ph.D. "Against Praxeas – How Far
Did Tertullian Advance the Doctrine of the Trinity?" Global Journal of
Classical Theology. (April 2009) Available online at
http://www.phc.edu/UserFiles/File/_Other%20Projects/Global%20Journal/7-1/HaroldCarl.pdf
Labels:
beliefs,
Christianity,
definitions,
deity of Christ,
Nicean Creed,
Trinity
Friday, May 16, 2014
A Christian Must Believe That Jesus is God
I've begun a series of blog posts talking about the necessary beliefs one must hold to be considered a Christian. As a guide, I've been looking at the Nicean Creed to formulate the basic beliefs that define the Christian faith. One clear aspect of the Christian faith is the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Right on the heels of declaring monotheism, the church fathers also declare that Jesus is God:
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
Jesus is equal with the Father
Notice that the emphasis on this part of the creed is to place the Son on equal footing with the Father. That's why the repetition of "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God" is used. In the early days of Christianity there were several heresies that cropped up trying to claim that Jesus is in some way lesser than God the Father. The Arians, like the modern day Jehovah's Witnesses, held that Jesus was God's first creation. Jesus is a "mighty god" but not "Almighty God."Christians had long held that Jesus is God as much as the Father is God. He claimed the honors afforded to God and the attributes ascribed to God. He forgave sins only God would and received worship that is reserved for God alone.1 Robert Wilken writes that the Greek philosopher Celsus was offended by the Christian view of God even in the second century. In discussing his views, Wilken says Celsus is fine with those who would hold Jesus in some type of divine status, such as that reserved for the Caesars. Celsus wasn't convinced that Jesus even deserved this level of honor, but as long as those worshippers recognize the "high God" as greater than lesser deities, it would be OK. Wilken then writes, "The Christians, however, made even more extravagant claims: they said that Jesus was unique among the gods and that he should be worshipped to the exclusion of all other gods. To Celsus such excessive adoration set up Jesus as a rival to God and undercut the worship of the one God." 2
Jesus is different from the Father
While Christians recognize Jesus as being fully God, equal with the Father, they recognize that Jesus is not the same person as the Father. He is not the Father, but the Son. In scripture, we see Jesus coming from the Father (Jn. 5:37, 12:49), He prays to the Father (Mt. 26:39, Lk 23:34,Jn 17:1), He obeys the Father (Lk 22:42, Jn 6:38), and He humbles Himself before the Father (Phil 2:4-8). Jesus is distinct from the Father but both He and the Father are recognized as God.The Arian view of Jesus was the motivating issue that caused the church fathers to gather from across the globe and convene the first church council in Nicea. The formulation of the Nicean Creed was the result. Its purpose was to clearly establish the equality of Jesus with God the Father while still maintaining the concept of a single God. The church fathers did this by distinguishing between the concept of personhood and being. Next time, I'll unpack the teaching of the Trinity a bit more. For now, recognize that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to be a Christian.
References
1. For a more conmprehensive understanding of the
biblical case for why Jesus is recognized as God, see my post "The HANDS
Argument for the Deity of Jesus" at
http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2014/05/the-hands-argument-for-deity-of-jesus.html
2. Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984). 120.
2. Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984). 120.
Labels:
beliefs,
Christianity,
deity of Christ,
Jesus,
Nicean Creed,
religion,
Trinity
Thursday, May 15, 2014
A Christian Must Believe There is One God
Yesterday, I began a series talking about what beliefs someone must hold to be considered a Christian. While there are many different Christian denominations that
exist, there are certain beliefs that are essential which all Christian denominations
hold. These core beliefs identify Christianity from all other faiths and I had said
there that the Nicean Creed is a really good starting point for identifying just
what are those essential beliefs.
The first section of the creed sets affirms a core concept of God that stems from the Jewish Old Testament. It reads:
So, in order for God to be Almighty God, He has to be a single being. This is a straightforward logical understanding of God. Christians believe in one Almighty God (Deut 6:4, john 17:3, 1 Tim 2:5). That means that faiths such as Mormonism are excluded from Christianity immediately. Mormonism holds that many beings can become just as God the Father is now2, making God something less than what the creed establishes.
Mormons also believe that God has progressed through time to become God.3 He wasn't always almighty but he is now. Such a statement is self-contradictory since there is some mechanism (the eternal progression law or function or whatever) that God cannot have dominion over. Instead, He must obey its precepts to become God himself. That again means that the God of Mormonism isn't Almighty.
The first section of the creed sets affirms a core concept of God that stems from the Jewish Old Testament. It reads:
We believe in one God,Right off the bat, Christianity is identified as a monotheistic faith. One God and no others. This is key to all subsequent understanding of God, especially when considering His attributes.
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
For God to be Almighty, there can only be one
God is first identified as "Almighty." Most people understand the word God to mean a being that is all powerful. But that also means that God must be a single being. For if God is almighty, then He can have no equal. As a contrast, some later versions of Zoroastianism held to a concept of two beings, one good and one evil, who were equally powerful and locked in a constant state of war.1 But you cannot claim that a god is all-powerful if that god cannot win a fight with his enemy! The fact that the war exists at all shows that the god has limited power; his power cannot govern his foe. The problem would of course get worse with multiple gods, limiting the power of one's god even more as the other gods multiplied.So, in order for God to be Almighty God, He has to be a single being. This is a straightforward logical understanding of God. Christians believe in one Almighty God (Deut 6:4, john 17:3, 1 Tim 2:5). That means that faiths such as Mormonism are excluded from Christianity immediately. Mormonism holds that many beings can become just as God the Father is now2, making God something less than what the creed establishes.
Mormons also believe that God has progressed through time to become God.3 He wasn't always almighty but he is now. Such a statement is self-contradictory since there is some mechanism (the eternal progression law or function or whatever) that God cannot have dominion over. Instead, He must obey its precepts to become God himself. That again means that the God of Mormonism isn't Almighty.
All of reality depends on the One God
The next part of that first sentence declares that God is the maker of heaven and earth, whether those things are part of the natural world (seen) or the spiritual world (unseen). All of creation relies upon God for its existence. God didn't need to create the universe, but He chose to do so. This makes God completely without dependence and when He creates, He creates out of nothing (Gen. 1:3-29, Heb. 11:3, Acts 14:24-25, Rev. 4:11). But in the Mormon view of God, the universe is eternal and God simply reshapes and refines pre-existing materials.4 If this is so, then we again see that the god Mormonism affirms is not the God of Christianity. Therefore, we can quickly declare that Mormons fall outside the definition of Christian by their denial of these essential attributes of God.References
1. Shapero, Hannah M.G. "Is Zoroastrianism
really a dualistic religion?" Pyracantha web site.
http://www.pyracantha.com/Z/dualism.html 11/29/1995. Accessed: 4/15/2014.
2. Adams, Lisa Ramsey. "Eternal Progression." Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Progression Accessed: 4/15/2014.
3 Robinson, Stephen E. "God the Father." Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Heavenly_Father Accessed: 4/15/2014.
4 Nielsen, F. Kent and Stephen D. Ricks. "Creation, Creation Accounts." Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Creation,_Creation_Accounts Accessed: 4/15/2014.
http://www.pyracantha.com/Z/dualism.html 11/29/1995. Accessed: 4/15/2014.
2. Adams, Lisa Ramsey. "Eternal Progression." Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Progression Accessed: 4/15/2014.
3 Robinson, Stephen E. "God the Father." Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Heavenly_Father Accessed: 4/15/2014.
4 Nielsen, F. Kent and Stephen D. Ricks. "Creation, Creation Accounts." Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Creation,_Creation_Accounts Accessed: 4/15/2014.
Labels:
attributes of God,
beliefs,
Christianity,
Mormonism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
© 1999 – 2014 Come Reason Ministries. All rights reserved.