Saturday, November 16, 2019

The Rise of Newtonian Science



Christian theology and the rise of Newtonian science—imposed law and the divine will

by 
In order for science to progress, it was necessary to reject the erroneous view of nature handed down by Greek philosophers, and which dominated among the intellectual elite during much of the medieval period. Leading historians of science acknowledge that the Christian doctrines of God and Creation played a pivotal role in this process. The Greek view of nature as a living organism was replaced by the biblical view that only people and animals have souls. This led to the rejection of the Greek explanation for motion as arising from tendencies internal to objects, and its replacement with the concept of external, divinely imposed laws. The Greek view that natural processes are governed by eternal principles binding even on the gods was replaced by the biblical view of God’s omnipotence and His freedom to create as He willed. This led to the belief that the laws of nature were determined entirely by God’s choice and could, therefore, only be discovered by observations.
parted-sea




At the heart of scientific enquiry is the faith that the world is orderly and behaves consistently from one day to the next.1 One might ask, however, how this belief arose. According to Peter Harrison, formerly Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, it was, in a large part, “the theologically informed assumption that there are laws of nature, promulgated by God and discoverable by human minds (emphasis added)”.2 Eminent Philosopher of Science Alfred North Whitehead would agree. He wrote: “My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology.”3
Prior to the late medieval period, Greek philosophy dominated among the intellectual elite. However, around the 13th century onwards, there was a reaction against this by Christian theologians. Philosophers and historians of science have argued that this rejection of the Greek understanding of nature, particularly the teachings of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics, and its replacement by the biblical worldview, substantially underpinned the rise of modern science.4,5,6,7,8

The Greek view of nature

In the thinking of most Greek philosophers, the world was a living, divine organism. For some, even matter was understood to have god-like attributes, being self-sufficient and unchangeable, with inherent properties determining a universal world order binding even upon the gods. This divine substance governed the development of the world and dictated the movements of the heavenly bodies. Consistent with this belief, the Greek poet Hesiod (c. 700 BC) thought that the earth generated the mountains. In contrast, the Hebrews saw the world forming according to God’s command (e.g. Genesis 1).

Plato

In the thinking of Plato (c. 428–348 BC), true reality is found in the realm of thoughts,
rather than by observing and learning from our world. Using our senses, we perceive only shadows of reality. The principle is applied generally so that everything known in our world, material or immaterial, exists as a more perfect ‘ideal’ or true ‘form’ in some higher plane. Legal decisions made in courts are our best attempts to administer justice but are never wholly successful as true justice remains transcendent. Round plates produced by a potter or circles painted by an artist are merely imperfect representations of true roundness which can only be pictured in the mind or expressed mathematically. These ‘forms’ or ‘ideas’ are divine and explain the nature of objects. While ‘forms’ are eternal and immutable, objects are changeable. Hence, ‘forms’ are considered more certain than what is observed, and logical reasoning and analysis are understood to be more reliable than fallible observations.



According to Plato, when ‘the Demiurge’ (the creator) shaped the world, he was constrained to follow these preordained ‘ideal’ patterns, rather than being free to make it as he wished. In addition, he had to use materials he had not created himself and these tended to resist his attempts to form them. Galen (c. 129–216) was another influential Greek writer who rejected the Genesis account of creation because this was contrary to his understanding that the creator would be limited in his work by the nature of matter.9
Instead of studying the motions of the planets and concluding from this that they follow elliptical orbits, as did Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), Plato ‘reasoned’ that they must follow circular paths because circular motion is most perfect, an ‘ideal’ form, and most befitting to the gods. Similarly, he ‘deduced’ that the universe must be spherical because this is the ‘ideal’ shape. In fact, Plato explicitly rejected the view that astronomical observations were useful, arguing that we should “leave the starry heavens alone”.10 In this he followed his teacher, Socrates (c. 470–399 BC), who, while regarding astronomy worthwhile in determining the time or day of the year, considered that learning the courses of the stars, or enquiring about the causes of their movements, was a waste of time. According to his pupil, Xenophon (430–350 BC), Socrates “held that speculators on the Universe and on the laws of the heavenly bodies were no better than madmen”.11

Aristotle

Like Plato, Aristotle (384–322 BC) believed the world to be as it is due to necessity, conforming to eternal, unchangeable principles which could be deduced by processes of reason. To him the world was like a huge animal which breathed, grew, and decayed. In this he again followed Plato who asked: “In the likeness of what animal did the creator make the world?” In his writings Aristotle continuously appealed to biological similes, for example, likening earthquakes to animal digestion and the motion of stars to the locomotion of quadrupeds.12 As did Plato, he saw the heavenly bodies as living beings.
In the thinking of Aristotle, physical objects are a compound of ‘matter’ and ‘form’, where ‘form’ unifies some matter into a single object and determines its structure, properties, and activities. Without ‘form’, matter cannot even exist. Aristotle’s god, however, has little power over nature, having jurisdiction over neither the matter nor the form of natural objects.13,14
Aristotle distinguished between ‘natural motion’ and ‘violent motion’, the former arising from the nature of an object, the latter being imposed on it. For example, the natural motion of a stone would be to fall to the ground. However, if thrown, it will for a time move in an unnatural or ‘violent’ way. Whereas the natural motion of terrestrial bodies is rectilinear, the natural motion of celestial bodies, due to their being made of a different substance, is circular.15

The Stoics

According to the Stoics, the material world was impregnated with reason, and objects, along with people and animals, had souls. All was part of a universal world soul, with its individual parts in sympathetic relations to one another. To the Stoics, ‘natural law’ was ‘immanent’, i.e. inherent in the structure of things, and this explained everything from the behaviour of people and animals to the movements of the heavenly bodies. ‘Laws of nature’ arise out of necessity, in the properties of matter, and hence knowledge of the nature of things is thought to be the key to understanding their relations to one another.
Medieval scholastics often amalgamated Greek and biblical thinking. For example, Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224–1274), while accepting the omnipotence of God, also saw natural law as immanent in the universe. For him, eternal law is nothing other than God.16 Some wrote of ‘substantial forms’ impregnated in nature, internal causes of processes arising from objects possessing soul-like powers. Unobservable ‘occult qualities’ adhered to objects like ‘little ghosts’, producing effects by ‘sympathy’ and ‘antipathy’.17 Sympathy, for example, was thought to explain the attraction of iron to a magnet—just as man is attracted to woman. The doctrine of horror vacui (abhorrence of a vacuum) was thought to explain why water rose in ‘suction’ or ‘vacuum’ pump barrels. Supposedly, this was because nature had an antipathy to empty space.18,19

An impediment to science

Platonic thinking was antithetical to science because it detracted from the view that the world could be understood by learning from observations. In contrast, biblical thinking pointed to this as the only way of discovering reality. The Bible teaches that God is omnipotent and was in no way constrained to create according to any prescribed pattern. For, “Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on Earth, in the seas and all deeps” (Psalm 135:6). Since He created matter ex nihilo (from nothing) he could endow it with whatever properties He chose. In biblical thinking, the natural order arose as a result of a historical act of creation (Genesis 1:1ff); nothing about it is either eternal or necessary and the Creator was not constrained to follow pre-existing ‘forms’. Rather, the world is as it is, and behaves as it does, because of divine choice, the will of a sovereign deity. Hence, it is impossible to determine the nature of things based on reason alone. Only by studying His creation could God’s design be known.
The rejection of Greek thinking by the founders of modern science is exemplified in Roger Cotes’ preface to the second edition of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy):
“Without all doubt this World … could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God directing and presiding over all. From this fountain it is that those laws, which we call the laws of Nature, have flowed; in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures; but learn them from observations and experiments.”
Newton himself, in the very first sentence of his preface, wrote of how modern thinkers, having discarded “[soulish] substantial forms and occult qualities have endeavoured to subject the phenomena of nature to the laws of mathematics”. A committed biblical creationist, he also rejected the Greek view that God would have been constrained in His acts of creation in any way. He wrote of God:
“ … we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion … and a God without dominion, providence, and final causes [i.e. design], is nothing else but Fate [i.e. necessity] and Nature.”20

The world—animate or inanimate?




Plato taught that the cosmos created by the Demiurge was a living organism, that the world had a divine soul, and the stars and planets were gods. In a similar vein, Aristotle taught that stones fall to the ground because they have a yearning for the centre of the universe (which he believed to be the centre of the earth). Such thinking was an obstruction to science because it attributed causes of motion to motives and inner compulsions, rather than to impersonal, external forces.21
In contrast, the Bible clearly distinguishes between the Creator and the creature (i.e. that which was created). God is spirit (John 4:24) and is a being separate from the world. There is only one God (Isaiah 45:5) and His creation is not divine; for God said: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” (Isaiah 43:10). Indeed, to attribute divinity to the creature is idolatry. As argued by Oratian priest Nicole Malebranche (1638–1715), there can be only one cause which is “nothing but the will of God”. For Malebranche, Greek ‘forms’ are nothing more than “the little gods of the heathen” introduced by the evil one to occupy the hearts which the Creator has made to belong to himself.22
The cosmos is not an organism and does not have a soul, this being firmly established in the very first book of the Bible. Here only animals and people are described as ‘living creatures’ (Genesis 1:20, 24). The universe is not eternal and does not have any self-sustaining or self-generating powers. Rather it is the work of a single Creator upon whom it is totally dependent. Hence, objects do not have minds and desires, and are not subject to laws inherent within their natures; instead the non-living world operates according to laws imposed on it from without. The moon gives rise to tides, not because it has some sort of friendship with the water of the oceans, but because of the impersonal law of gravity.

The lawgiver

The God of the Bible is the lawgiver in both the moral and physical realms. He gave the 10 commandments to Moses (Exodus 20:3–17) and wrote the requirements of the law on the hearts of men so that they “by nature do what the law requires” (Romans 2:14–15). He is the one who gathered the waters together (Genesis 1:9) and “assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command” (Proverbs 8:29). He “made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder” (Job 28:26). He created the sun to govern the day and night (Genesis 1:16), “commanded the morning … and caused the dawn to know its place” (Job 38:12). He created the stars to mark the seasons (Genesis 1:14), knows “the ordinances of the heavens”, and established “their rule on the earth” (Job 38:33). He continually “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3).

 In the Old Testament, God’s commands to nature are often expressed in legal language. For example, the Hebrew word huq is used in both Proverbs 8:29 and Job 28:26. Its verbal form means to ‘engrave’ or ‘legislate’ and is often used in the context of God giving moral and ritual laws. In both these verses, the 4th century Vulgate translation uses the Latin word lex, meaning ‘law’. According to philosopher of science Edgar Zilsel, verses such as these “were quoted through the centuries again and again, and have decidedly contributed to the formation of concepts in rising natural science.”23 Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), for example, wrote that nature “never transgresses the bounds of the laws imposed to it”, being a “most careful executor of the orders of God” and argued for nature’s strict observance of God’s commands citing, among others, Job 28:26, 38:8–11 and Psalm 104:9.24 According to Professor Friedrich Steinle, for Galileo the concept of law in nature was “most intimately and inextricably connected with theological considerations concerning God’s activity as legislator”.25




 Nobel Prize winner Melvin Calvin also acknowledged the influence of the Bible in these matters. Referring to the necessity of conceiving of the world as orderly, he remarked:
“As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion … enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheist view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.”26
Drawing on his Christian theology Newton wrote:
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God or Universal Ruler.”27

Imposed vs immanent law

The Greek view of the cosmos as an organism drew upon an analogy between the natural world and a human being. As such it was understood to have been endowed with intelligence and life. In contrast, the Christian view was based on an analogy between the natural world and a machine.28 Hence, the movements of bodies were not due to their being capable of controlling themselves; nor did they arise from ‘immanent laws’ (i.e. those inherent in objects and in the structure of reality itself). Rather they were the result of ‘imposed laws’ set up by an external, omnipotent Designer.29 According to the Bible, this same God had created the mind of man after His own likeness (Genesis 1:26–27, 5:1–3); hence it was considered possible for us to understand His designs and describe the scientific principles by which they operated.30

The divine will

Francis Oakley, formerly Professor of the History of Ideas, Williams College, Massachusetts, documents how, beginning around the 13th century, European theologians rejected Greek thinking about God and nature and replaced it with biblical thinking.16 This began in 1277, when Etienne Tempier, Bishop of Paris, and Robert Kilwardby, Archbishop of Canterbury, formally condemned a list of 219 philosophical propositions as contrary to the Christian faith. These focused particularly on the teaching of Aristotle and the need to refute the view that God was in any way limited in His absolute power to do whatever He wishes.
This emphasis on the ‘divine will’ was strengthened, among others, by William Ockham (c. 1332), who insisted that both moral law and the whole of creation are entirely subject to God’s choice. Ockham drew attention to God’s ability to overrule natural law by reference to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s emerging unscathed from Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace (Daniel 3). Jean Buridan (c. 1350) argued that God, “in his most free will” may have created things which did not seem reasonable to the human mind—and this, of course, is true. Who would have thought that light would sometimes behave like a wave and sometimes a particle? Nicole Oresme (c. 1377) rejected Aristotle’s assertion that the earth must be stationary and that the heavenly bodies must move in circular orbits. To Oresme, God would do as He pleased.31


Portrait of The Honourable Robert Boyle (1627–1691), by Kerseboom. Credit: Wellcome Collection. CC BYrobert-boyle
Figure 1. The ‘father of chemistry’, Robert Boyle (1627–1691), argued that God could have made other worlds where the laws of nature were different.

Of great significance is that two of the great German reformers, Martin Luther (1483–1546) and Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560), in order to demonstrate the power of God over nature, also referred to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s deliverance, along with, Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), William Perkins (1558–1602), John Preston (1587–1628), William Ames (1576–1633), Thomas Shepard (1605–1649), John Norton (1606–1663), Increase Mather (1639–1723), and Samuel Willard (1640–1707). Another was the ‘father of modern chemistry’, Robert Boyle (1627–1691; figure 1), who referred to this incident in no less than three of his works. Oakley argues that this is strongly supportive of his contention that “the scientific idea of divinely imposed laws of nature had its origins in a living theological tradition which went back to the last years of the thirteenth century”.16
Kepler argued that the failure of the Greek philosophy to birth the concept of mathematical law could be explained by Aristotle’s belief that the world was eternal and that Aristotle’s god did not impose order on the world. In contrast, Kepler maintained that “our faith holds that the world, which had no previous existence, was created by God in weight, measure, and number, that is in accordance with ideas co-eternal with Him”.32,33 Kepler’s understanding of ‘eternal ideas’, however, was very different to that of the Greeks. For Plato, because ‘ideas’ were eternal, they were also immutable and binding on the gods. For Kepler’s God (the God of the Bible), the principles which He used to determine the order of nature were entirely of His own choosing.
Both Boyle and Newton argued that God could vary the laws of nature. Boyle considered it plausible that God had made other worlds where “the laws of this propagation of motion among bodies may not be the same with those that are established in our world.”34 Similarly, Newton argued that “God is able … to vary the Laws of Nature and make Worlds of several sorts in several Parts of the Universe.”35
This belief that the laws governing the natural world were determined entirely by the Creator’s choice led to the realisation that the world order could not be deduced by a priori reasoning, but only empirically, through observation and experiment.

The orderliness of creation

The God of the Bible is the One who “laid the foundation of the earth … determined its measurements” and “laid its cornerstone” (Job 38:4–6). He “gives the horse its might”, and it is by His “understanding that the hawk soars and spreads his wings toward the south” (Job 39:19, 26). The Israelites were told to consider the stars and remember their God, who “brings out their host by number, calling them all by name; by the greatness of his might and because he is strong in power, not one is missing” (Isaiah 40:26). He is the One who established a “covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). “The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth … his understanding is unsearchable” (Isaiah 40:28).
In forming the world, God brought forth order from disorder. The original creation was “without form and void” (Genesis 1:2) and the first man was made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7). Israel is said to be like clay in a potter’s hand (Jeremiah 18:6); according to the apostle Paul, God is not a God of disorder but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33). In the first chapter of John’s gospel, the Creator is revealed to be ‘the Word’ (Greek logos), the incarnate Son of God. Logos also carries the sense of logic and reason. This logos is also the One whose act of redemption will one day liberate the fallen creation from its bondage to decay (Romans 8:21). Early Christian theologian Origen (c. 185–254) argued that God conferred upon His creation an intrinsic rationality and order that reflected the divine nature itself.36 This is in stark contrast to the polytheism of some pagan religions where the natural world might be subject to the whims of temperamental deities with conflicting interests. In such a world, almost anything could happen!
In his book, Mind of God, Paul Davies acknowledges that “the justification for what we today call the scientific approach to inquiry was the belief in a rational God whose created order could be discerned from a careful study of nature.”37 According to Alistair McGrath, Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University:
“This insight is directly derived from the Christian doctrine of creation and reflects the deeply religious worldview of the medieval and Renaissance periods … . This foundational assumption of the natural sciences—that God has created an ordered world, whose ordering could be discerned by humanity, which had in turn been created ‘in the image and likeness of God’—permeates the writing of the period.”38

The natural world as a mechanism



wikipedia.orgrene-descartes
Figure 2. The ‘father of mathematics’, René Descartes (1596–1650), wrote that “the rules of nature are identical with the rules of mechanics”.

According to the Bible, God is the Creator and sustainer of the universe and, at the same time, wholly separate from it. This, together with the sense of the orderliness of the creation, led theologians and philosophers to see the natural world as designed mechanism. Discussing blood circulation in his Discours de la Méthode (Discourse on Method), René Descartes (1596–1650; figure 2) stated that “the rules of nature are identical with the rules of mechanics” and, in his Le Monde (The World), he asserted “that God is immutable, and that acting always in the same manner, He produces always the same effect”. These laws, he said, are not immanent but ‘imposed’ on nature by God.39 The courses of the planets, the oceanic tides and the universe in general are regular and predictable because they are determined by the God of the Bible who is faithful and sure. Descartes’ contention that the natural world is governed by an unchanging God, and hence behaves consistently from one day to the next, was an essential step in scientific progress.
Although Zilsel controversially argues that the concept of laws of nature arose primarily from sociological factors—for example, the politics of absolute monarchy—he acknowledges that Descartes “took over the basic idea of physical regularities and quantitative rules of operation from the superior artisans of his period. And from the Bible he took the idea of God’s legislation. By combining both he created the modern concept of natural law.”23
French Bishop Nicole Oresme (c. 1320–1382) and French theologian Pierre D’Ailly (1350–1420) both wrote of the workings of the world as analogous to a clock.40 Melanchthon (1497–1560) referred to the “whole machine of the world” serving “perpetual laws” and insisted that God is a “most free agent, not, as the Stoics used to teach, bound by secondary causes”.16 In his De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), published in 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) wrote of the “the movements of the world machine, created for our sake by the best and most systematic Artisan of all”.
In a work containing numerous biblical quotations, Boyle argued that “the universe being once framed by God, and the laws of motion being settled and all upheld by his incessant concourse and general providence, the phenomena of the world thus constituted … operate upon one another according to mechanical laws.”41 He also expressly denied the concept of immanent law, arguing that “the laws of motion, without which the present state and course of things could not be maintained, did not necessarily spring from the nature of matter, but depended upon the will of the divine author of things”.42 According to Professor Hooykaas, in the thinking of Boyle and his contemporaries, “Holy Scripture … had made their science truly free”.43

Conclusion

According to Oxford philosopher Michael Foster:
“[T]he method of natural science depends upon the presuppositions which are held about nature, and the presuppositions about nature in turn upon the doctrine of God. Modern natural science could begin only when the modern presupposition about nature displaced the Greek … but this displacement itself was possible only when the Christian conception of God had displaced the Pagan as the object … of systematic understanding. To achieve this primary displacement was the work of Medieval Theology.”44
By de-deifying nature and de-personalising motion, Christian theology emancipated science from its stagnation under Greek philosophy. It asserted that the universe is not eternal but created, and its nature and operating principles did not have to conform to any eternal, unchangeable ‘forms’. Emphasising God’s omnipotence and His freedom to create as He willed led to the view that the scientific method necessitated observations. The belief that there are laws imposed upon a world by an orderly, faithful, and immutable God caused philosophers to see the universe as a designed mechanism, rather than an eternally existing organism. This, in turn, led to the belief that the workings of God’s creation could be investigated, understood, and described mathematically. All this hung on the Christian doctrine of creation, as articulated so clearly in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.”

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Sarfati, J., Why does science work at all? Creation 31(3):12–14 June 2009. Return to text.
  2. Harrison, P., God’s, Man’s and Nature’s: Laws of nature, moral order, and the intelligibility of the cosmos, ISSN-2045-5577, 2011; lse.ac.uk. Return to text.
  3. Whitehead, A.N., Science and the Modern World, The Free Press, New York, paperback edition, p. 13, 1967; first published 1925. Return to text.
  4. Stark. R., For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, chap. 2, 2003. Return to text.
  5. Hooykaas, R., Religion and the Rise of Modern Science, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1977, first printed 1972. Return to text.
  6. Jaki, S.L., Science and Creation, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, UK, 1986. Return to text.
  7. Foster, M.B., The Christian doctrine of creation and the rise of modern natural science, Mind 43(172):446–468, October 1934. Return to text.
  8. Glover, W.B., Biblical Origins of Modern Secular Culture: An essay in the interpretation of western history, Mercer University Press, Macon, GA, chap. iv, 1984. Return to text.
  9. Hooykaas, ref. 5, chap. 1. Return to text.
  10. Hetherington, S.F., Planetary Motions: A historical perspective, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, p. 19, 2006. Return to text.
  11. Hammerton J.A. (Ed.), Illustrated Encyclopaedia of World History, Mittal Publications, Daryaganj, New Delhi, vol. 3, p. 1479. Return to text.
  12. Jaki, ref. 6, p. 105. Return to text.
  13. Aristotle, Physics Book II, c. 350 BC; classics.mit.edu. Return to text.
  14. Foster, ref. 7, p. 458. Return to text.
  15. Aristotle, On the Heavens, c. 350 BC; classics.mit.edu. Return to text.
  16. Oakley, F., Christian theology and the Newtonian science: the rise of the concept of the laws of nature, Church History 30(4):433–457, December 1961. Return to text.
  17. Zilsel, E., The Social Origins of Modern Science, Springer Science, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, p. 176, 2003; first published c. 1940. Return to text.
  18. Zilsel, ref. 17, p. 177. Return to text.
  19. Simonyi, K., A Cultural History of Physics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 233–234, English Translation 2012. Return to text.
  20. Newton, I., The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Book III, 1687; translated by Motte, A., Daniel Adee, New York, p. 506, 1846; archive.org. Return to text.
  21. Jaki, ref. 6, p. 105. Return to text.
  22. Hooykaas, ref. 5, p. 20–21. Return to text.
  23. Zilsel, E., The Genesis of the concept of physical law, Philosophical Review 51(3):245–279, 1942. Return to text.
  24. Steinle, F., The amalgamation of a concept—laws of nature in the new sciences; in: Weinert, F. (Ed.), Laws of Nature: Essays on the philosophical, scientific and historical dimensions, Walter de Greyter, New York, pp. 316–368, 1995. Return to text.
  25. Steinle, ref. 24, p. 328. Return to text.
  26. Calvin, M., Chemical Evolution: Molecular evolution towards the origin of living systems on the earth and elsewhere, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, p. 258, 1969. Return to text.
  27. Newton, I., ref. 20, p. 504. Return to text.
  28. Hooykaas, ref. 5, pp. 13–19. Return to text.
  29. Collingwood, R.G., The Idea of Nature, Martino Publishing, pp. 5–8, 2014; first published 1945. Return to text.
  30. Jaki, ref. 6, p. 278. Return to text.
  31. Hooykaas, ref. 5, p. 33. Return to text.
  32. Harrison, P., The development of the concept of laws of nature; in Watts, F. (Ed.), Creation: Law and probability, Ashgate, UK, 2008. Return to text.
  33. The phrase, “weight, measure, and number” is found in chapter 11 of the Book of Wisdom. Return to text.
  34. The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, vol. 5, Printed for W. Johnston et al., London, pp. 139–140, 1722. Return to text.
  35. Newton, I., Opticks: A treatise on the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light, Dover Publications, New York, pp. 403–404, 1952. Return to text.
  36. McGrath, A.E., The Science of God: An introduction to scientific theology, T &T Clark, London, p. 51, 2004. Return to text.
  37. Davies, P., The Mind of God: The scientific basis for a rational world, Simon & Schuster, New York, p. 77, 1992. Return to text.
  38. McGrath, ref. 36, p. 67. Return to text.
  39. “quelles sont les Lois que Dieu lui [nature] a imposées”, Descartes, R., Le Monde, Theodore Girard, Paris, p. 78, 1664. Return to text.
  40. Jaeger, L., What the Heavens Declare: Science in the light of creation, Cascade Books, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, p. 40, 2012. Return to text.
  41. The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, vol. 4, Printed for W. Johnston et al., London, pp. 68–69, 1722. Return to text.
  42. Ref. 34, p. 521. Return to text.
  43. Hooykaas, ref. 5, p. 50. Return to text.
  44. Foster, ref. 7, p. 465. See also Foster, M.B., Christian theology and modern science of nature (I), Mind 44(176):439–466, October 1935; and Foster, M.B., Christian theology and modern science of nature (II), Mind 45(177):1–27, January 1936. Return to text.
Dear Augustine: You are welcome to post CMI articles on the mentioned website, as long as you agree not to change any of the content and reference creation.com and the relevant authors, as you have indicated.
Kind regards,  Annalouise Bekker  Administration
Creation Ministries International (Australia)


on No comments:

Saturday, November 2, 2019

The Trinity

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
Throughout the centuries, the nature of God has been at the center of many heated debates. Entire counsels have assembled to discuss whether God is composed of three personalities having one nature, whether Jesus is a part of the Godhead, how the Holy Spirit factors into the equation, and a host of similar questions. The answers to these questions can have far reaching theological and practical consequences. It is the purpose of this article to prove the thesis that the Bible teaches that the Godhead is three personalities—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in one nature.

DEFINITIONS

As in all discussions dealing with a proper understanding of truth, an agreed upon and acceptable, sufficiently precise definition of the major terms must be set out in the beginning.
  • Godhead or Divinity: A description of the totality, both of nature and personality, of the supernatural Creator of the world (see Lenski, 1961, p. 98).
  • Nature: “The inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing; essence” (“Nature,” 2015).
  • Personality: A recognizable, distinct entity that has mind and desire. As described by Merriam-Webster: “The complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual….The totality of an individual’s behavioral and emotional characteristics; a set of distinctive traits and characteristics” (“Personality,” 2015).
While most words that will be discussed concerning the Trinity, such as “personality,” “nature,” and even “divinity” or “Godhead,” are fairly easy to define, that does not mean the aspects of God that they describe are easy to understand. In fact, the Godhead is so complex and beyond human capability to fully understand, that any attempt to discuss God quickly reveals the limitations of the human mind. We can never fully understand the Godhead. As the apostle Paul so eloquently wrote about God’s revelation of the Gospel: “Oh, the depth and the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out” (Romans 11:33). We should not conclude, however, that nothing can be known of God. Were that the case, to have any discussion about Him, say His name, or even to identify the concept of God, would be impossible for us. On the contrary, while we may not be able to understand fully all that the term “nature” of God entails, and while we may not be able to define the concept of a “personality” so that we comprehend everything about it, we can know enough about the terms “Godhead,” “nature,” and “personality” to say that the Godhead is three personalities in one nature.

THE BASIC ARGUMENT FOR THE TRINITY

The basic argument for the Trinity proceeds as follows:
  • Premise one: the Bible teaches that the Godhead is one in nature.
  • Premise two: the Bible teaches that God the Father is one personality of the Godhead.
  • Premise three: the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is one personality of the Godhead.
  • Premise four: the Bible teaches that Jesus the Son is one personality of the Godhead.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, God is composed of three personalities in one nature.

THE GODHEAD IS ONE IN NATURE

Various Scriptures demonstrate that the Godhead is one in nature. One of the most well-known passages that relates this truth is Deuteronomy 6:4, which states: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” A similar passage is found in Ephesians 4:4-6, which reads, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” In addition, Malachi 2:10 says, “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” The fact that God is one is clearly stated in the Bible.
The clear statements of God’s oneness lead some to deny that God is composed of three personalities. They suggest that if God is one, then He cannot be three in any way; so His oneness excludes the possibility that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. As M. Davies wrote: “We have seen how that, throughout the Bible God is only described as being one being…. So it is to the Bible we must turn, and when we do, we do not find any evidence to suggest that God is made up of three beings” (2009). Thus, the critics of the doctrine of the Trinity do not differentiate between the concept of nature and that of personality. This idea will be expanded upon in the section dealing with common objections. It is included here simply to set up the argument for God’s oneness being in nature, and not personality.
The Bible says that “one God” created us (Malachi 2:10). A closer look, however, at the Creation of man shows that some type of multiplicity was involved. Genesis 1:26-27 states, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.… So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” The Hebrew language used in this passage cannot be definitively used to prove a multiplicity, but it is written in such a way that certainly allows for the one God to have some aspect of multiplicity or plurality. A better understanding of this plurality is gained by looking at the verses in the Bible that discuss the Creation. John 1:1 explains, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” Later in the first chapter of John we learn that the Word “became flesh and dwelt among us.” Thus, the Word refers to Jesus, who was with God and was God and created all things along with the Father (John 1:14). We can see, then, that the oneness of the Creator must allow for at least some aspect of God to have a multiplicity of something.
In logical form, we could arrange the argument as follows. There is one God who created man. The concept of oneness either means that nothing about God can have any type of plurality, or that some aspect of God is completely unified but at least one other aspect of God can have multiplicity to it. It cannot be the case that nothing about God can have any multiplicity since the Bible gives at least one aspect of God (the Father and the Son) that has multiplicity. Therefore, some aspect of God is completely unified, but at least one aspect of God can have, and has, multiplicity.
Once we determine logically that at least one aspect of God has to be “one” and completely unified without multiplicity, we need to identify what that concept is. We see several ideas that are applied to God in His entirety. God is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2; Deuteronomy 33:27). God’s eternality applies to the Father, as well as to God the Son, as is evidenced from the fact that Isaiah 9:6 describes the Messiah (Who is recognized in the New Testament as Jesus) as being called “Everlasting Father.” The concept of eternality equally applies to the Spirit, as the Hebrews writer stated, “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God” (Hebrews 9:14, emp. added). Since the concept of eternality equally applies to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then we have successfully determined at least one aspect of God that is completely unified and applies equally to every aspect of God. Such qualities compose the nature or essence of the being of God. And while it is true that we cannot know or understand all of the aspects of God’s essence, we can compile a list of ideas or attributes that make-up this unified whole that applies equally to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  • God’s essence is immutable, or unchangeable (Psalm 103:17; Hebrews 13:8).
  • God’s essence is morally perfect (Habakkuk 1:13; 1 Peter 2:22).
  • God’s essence is founded on justice (Psalm 89:14; Matthew 23:23).
  • God’s essence is love (1 John 4:8).
  • God’s essence is eternal (Psalm 90:2; Deuteronomy 33:27; Isaiah 9:6).
The Bible provides a much more exhaustive list of the attributes of God’s nature or essence. This short list is provided to make the point that all three personalities of God (i.e., the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), share one unified nature that applies equally to all of them.

THE THREE PERSONALITIES OF GOD

Having established the fact that God is one in essence or nature, we can now move to dealing with the idea that God is three personalities. The burden of this portion of the article will be to establish that the three personalities of God are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

God the Father

The premise that one personality of the Godhead is the Father is one of the least disputed and easily proven concepts in this discussion. In fact, many people and religious groups consider the Father to be the only personality of God (which we will show is not the case), but very few who accept the Bible as the Word of God argue that God the Father is not God. This is the case because there are so many verses in the Bible that identify God in the personality of the Father. Let us examine a few of those. In 2 Peter 1:17, the text states that Jesus “received from God the Father honor and glory.” Jude 1 is written to those “who are called, sanctified by God the Father.” When Jesus was instructing His disciples to pray, He taught them to say, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name” (Matthew 6:9). Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, “Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you” (1 Thessalonians 3:11). As with other aspects of the argument, a much longer list could be compiled showing that the Bible refers to God the Father as being part of the Godhead. Thus, as our argument proceeds, we have now established that the Godhead has one unified nature, and has at least one personality, namely, God the Father.

God the Holy Spirit

Because of the way many people view the term “spirit,” it has often been the case that the Holy Spirit is misidentified. He is often referred to as an “it,” and some do not recognize the fact that He is a personality of the Godhead. The Scriptures, however, are clear that the Holy Spirit is a personality of the Godhead in the same way as the Father and the Son. First, recall that the Bible explains that the Spirit is eternal (Hebrews 9:14). That means that He is not a created being, but has always existed. In argument form we would say, God is the only being that is eternal. The Holy Spirit is eternal. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is God. In addition, we read that just as God knows all things, the Spirit does as well. First Corinthians 2:10-11 states, “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God…. Even so, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.”
The book of Acts contains a memorable story about two early Christians named Ananias and Sapphira. These two sold a piece of property, gave the money to the church, but lied about the price of the land. When the apostle Peter rebuked them for their sin, he said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…. You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3-4). Notice that Peter stated that by lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias had lied to God, equating God and the Holy Spirit. In addition, 1 Peter 1:2 says that the Christians there had participated in the “sanctification of the Spirit.” In 2 Thessalonians 5:23, the Bible says, “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely.” Again, we see that the work of sanctifying the Christian is accomplished by God, but is attributed to the Holy Spirit. This line of reasoning can be extended to other aspects of God’s action. In 2 Timothy, Paul states that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (3:16). Peter explains that the Scriptures were produced when “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). We then can reason that God inspired the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, thus the Holy Spirit is God.
Once we establish that the Holy Spirit is God, we next need to show that He is a person, not simply a nebulous force. We have defined the word “person” as a recognizable, distinct entity that has mind and desire. The Bible paints a consistent picture that the Holy Spirit, like the Father, is a person. First, the Scriptures state that the Holy Spirit can, and has, talked to people using language that those people can understand. In Acts 8:29, we read that “the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go near and overtake this chariot.’” This was not a nebulous, impersonal force, but a recognizable voice used by a person to communicate His desire to a man named Philip. The apostle Paul explained that “the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith” (1 Timothy 4:1). Once again, the Spirit speaks in understandable language. In Revelation, the text says that “the Spirit and the bride say ‘Come!’” (22:17). Only a person with a will and identity could offer such an invitation. In addition, consider that the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed (Matthew 12:31-32), lied to (Acts 5:3), insulted or despised (Hebrews 10:29), and grieved (Ephesians 4:30) (Olbright, 1999, p. 25). The Holy Spirit is God, and has all the traits of a person. We therefore conclude that the Father is one personality of God, and the Holy Spirit is another personality of God, proving that the one God has a multiplicity of personalities.

God the Son

In addition to the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Bible mentions another person Who composes the Godhead—Jesus Christ the Son. In fact, the Bible mentions these three together. Matthew 28:19 quotes Jesus as saying that His followers should baptize disciples in the name of the “Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Peter wrote that Christians were “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus” (1 Peter 1:2). A straightforward reading of these passages seems to put the three on equal footing. Some have contended, however, that even though Jesus is the Son of God (which the Scriptures teach in numerous places; see Matthew 14:33; 16:16; Mark 1:1; Luke 8:28; John 3:16-18; 2 Corinthians 1:19), that does not mean He was equal to God or had/has the same nature as God. Fred Pearce, who denies that Jesus is God, wrote: “But he is God’s Son, because he has been ‘begotten.’ The ruler is not God; he is the Son of God; and he began to exist on the day he was ‘begotten.’ Like all sons, he is preceded by his Father” (n.d.). Some have contended that God created Jesus first, and then Jesus created everything else. Thus, they would argue that Jesus is not God, but only the Son of God, a creation of God, or an elevated angel. Others would argue that Jesus was only a man and never claimed to be God or even an angel. The Bible, however, denies both of these positions, and presents a thorough and consistent picture of Jesus Christ the Son of God as God in nature and as a third personality of the Godhead. Consider the following three affirmations:

I. Jesus the Son is Referred to as God

The prophet Isaiah predicted that the Messiah would come in the form of a Child. That Messiah was going to be known as “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). Notice specifically that the coming Child would be called Mighty God. In the New Testament, we see that Jesus was that Child, the anointed Messiah, the Son of David described in Isaiah 9:6. In John 4:25, the woman with whom Jesus talked at the well stated, “I know the Messiah is coming” to which Jesus responded, “I who speak to you am He” (John 4:26). When we put the premises together, the argument looks like this: The Messiah is Mighty God. Jesus Christ the Son of God is the Messiah. Therefore, Jesus Christ is Mighty God.
In the first chapter of John, the text says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Again, notice that the Word is called God. Just a few verses later, the text explains that the “Word became flesh and dwelt among us” and that John “testified of Him” (John 1:14-15). In John 3:22-36, the person John testified about is Jesus Christ the Son of God. Putting the pieces together, we arrive at the following argument: The Word is God. Jesus Christ the Son is the Word. Therefore, Jesus Christ the Son is God. The apostle Thomas added his voice to this conclusion when he saw the wounds in Jesus’ body and proclaimed to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).

II. Jesus the Son is Worthy of and Accepted Worship

Matthew wrote a detailed account of Jesus being tempted by the devil in the wilderness. During that temptation, the devil enticed Jesus to fall down and worship him. Jesus responded by saying, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve’” (Matthew 4:1). Jesus’ argument went as follows: All people are morally bound to worship only one being, that is, God. The devil is not God. Therefore, no one should ever worship the devil. From this line of reasoning, it is clear that anyone who is faithful to God will not encourage the worship of any being other than God. We see this truth played out in a number of episodes in the Bible. In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas were in the city of Lystra when they healed a crippled man. The residents of the city were so enamored with the two, they began to worship them. Paul and Barnabas rushed in among the crowd and tried to stop their worship, crying out, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men with the same nature as you” (Acts 14:15). Their argument was similar to the one Jesus made. All people are morally bound to worship only one Being, that is, God. Paul and Barnabas are not God. Therefore, no people should ever worship Paul and Barnabas. The same thought process is used in Revelation 22:6-9. In that passage, the apostle John is introduced to an angel. The apostle “fell down to worship before the feet of the angel” (Revelation 22:8), but the angel said to him, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant…. Worship God” (Revelation 22:9). The angel’s argument can be laid out in the following way. God is the only Being any person should worship. I, an angel, am not God. Therefore, no person should ever worship me.
When we consider how Jesus responded to being worshiped, we can see that He readily accepted it as a proper response to His personality and power.  On numerous occasions, the Bible records that people worshiped Jesus Christ. Matthew 14:33 says that his disciples “came and worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly You are the Son of God.’” Jesus accepted the worship and did not rebuke them. In John 9:38, Jesus healed a man who had been born blind. Jesus then instructed the man to believe in the Son of God. The man responded by saying, “Lord, I believe!” then the text says, “And he worshiped Him” (see also Matthew 2:11; 28:9; John 20:28). As we analyze this argument, we see that Jesus said all people are morally bound to worship only God, and Jesus accepted worship as the proper attitude of people toward Him. Either Jesus violated Scripture and accepted worship contrary to the Bible’s teaching, or Jesus is God. Jesus never violated Scripture (Hebrews 4:15; John 8:46). Therefore, Jesus is God.

III. Jesus the Son is Equated with Jehovah

In the Hebrew Bible the special name for God is called the Tetragrammaton. It is composed of four Hebrew letters and is transliterated Jehovah or Yahweh. The actual pronunciation of the name has been lost since the original Hebrew did not have vowels. This name is used only to describe the eternal Creator God of the Universe. In Isaiah 6, the prophet records a time when he saw God in a vision. The angelic beings who stood around God’s throne addressed God as “Jehovah” of hosts in Isaiah 6:3 and used the same name (the Tetragrammaton) in verse five. There is no doubt that Isaiah was describing a vision of the eternal God. When we turn to the New Testament, we see the apostle John describing this scene from Isaiah. John writes that although He (Jesus) “had done so many signs before them, they did not believe” (John 12:38). He then references Isaiah 6:9-10, and says, “These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him” (John 12:41). The fact that the pronoun “Him” in verse 41 is referring to Jesus is verified by the use of the pronoun to describe Jesus in verse 37 and verse 42. Thus, the argument can then be made as follows: Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah God in Isaiah 6. John says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus and references the episode in Isaiah 6. Thus, John equates Jesus with Jehovah.
Additionally, other passages reference Jesus as being Jehovah. Isaiah 40:3 explains that a messenger would be sent as the forerunner of the Messiah. This messenger would be “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” who would “prepare the way of the Lord (Jehovah); make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (Isaiah 40:3). The New Testament applies this prophecy to John the Baptizer (John 1:11) and declares that John prepared the way for Jesus, thus equating Jesus with Jehovah. Again, the argument is as follows: Isaiah said the messenger would prepare the way for Jehovah. John was the messenger Isaiah predicted. He prepared the way for Jesus. Thus, Jesus is equated with Jehovah.
From these passages and the arguments they present, the Bible student is drawn to a concrete conclusion about Jesus the Son. Not only is Jesus directly called God, He accepted worship that is reserved only for God, and the holy name of Jehovah is applied to Jesus; thus Jesus is God. The idea that Jesus is a person who has a personality is undisputed. Therefore, Jesus is one personality of the Godhead [NOTE: For more information on the deity of Christ, see Miller, 2005 and the entire section of the Apologetics Press Web site dedicated to that topic under the heading “Deity of Christ” at http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10.] We have now established that the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son are three personalities of the Godhead, and they are composed of one nature. Let us turn to some common objections to this conclusion.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

As with any subject pertaining to God and the Bible, an exhaustive list of objections and responses to them would be so extensive it would take hundreds or thousands of pages to complete. With that in mind, we will have to content ourselves with responses to a few of the more common objections to the thesis we have presented.

Objection 1:
       The Word Trinity is Not in the Bible

The concept that the Godhead is three personalities—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in one nature is often summarized as presenting a triune God. The term triune denotes a trinity of personalities in one unified nature. The noun form of the adjective is Trinity. The term Trinity is used by the vast majority of Christians, and others who accept the thesis of this article, to describe the nature and personalities of God. One primary objection to the use of this word, and the conclusion that it is used to describe, is that the term is not even used in the Bible. For example, one critic of the idea of the Trinity wrote:
But did you realize that, even though it is a common assumption among many sincere religious people, the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible? In fact, the word Trinity did not come into common use as a religious term until centuries after the last books of the Bible were completed—long after the apostles of Christ were gone from the scene! (“Is the Trinity…?” 2011, italics in orig.).
Supposedly, because the Bible does not use the term Trinity to describe God, then the idea of a Trinity is an extrabiblical idea that was forced into the text.
In truth, the objection that the term Trinity is not used in the Bible can be refuted by showing that there certainly are words used today that describe concepts in the Bible, but those words or terms are not in the text. For instance, the Bible never uses the term “atheist” or “atheism.” Can we argue from that fact that the Bible does not deal with the concept of a person who does not believe in God? No, since we can see that Psalm 14:1 states, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Our modern term “atheism” accurately describes a person who says, “There is no God,” even though the term is not used in the text. In addition, the Bible never uses the word “Sunday,” yet we use that word today to accurately describe the day the Bible calls “the first day of the week,” which came after the Sabbath. Incidentally, we use the word “Saturday” to describe the Sabbath, even though “Saturday” is never used in the Bible. These examples show the logical inconsistency of claiming that a concept is not taught in the Bible if the word we currently use to describe the concept is not in the Bible.

Objection 2:
       If God is One, He Cannot Be Three

Another often heard objection to the thesis is the idea that if God is one, there is no way that He can be three. Those who use this argument quote verses such as Deuteronomy 6:4, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” and Ephesians 4:6 which says there is “one God and Father of all.” They argue that if God is one, as these verses say, then He cannot be three at the same time, because this would be a violation of the law of logic known as the Law of Contradiction.
In responding to this argument, it is helpful to review what the Law of Contradiction actually says. Warren states the law as: “Nothing can both have and not have a given characteristic (or property) in precisely the same respect” (1982, p. 23). Another way to state the law is that nothing can both be something, and not be that same thing at the same time, in the same way. The pertinent aspect of the Law of Contradiction as it relates to the Trinity discussion is the idea of a person or thing having a certain characteristic “in precisely the same respect” or “in the same way.” For instance, we could say that a person named Bob is very rich and very poor. While it seems contradictory at first, we could mean that he is physically and financially prosperous, but he is very shallow and spiritually poor. So, in one sense he is rich (monetarily) and in another sense he is poor (spiritually). Therefore, it can be true that he is both rich and poor at one and the same time. In the same way, God can both be one and be three at the same time precisely because the terms “one” and “three” apply to different aspects of God. When we use the word “one” we are discussing God’s eternal nature or essence. When we use the word “three” we are describing the personalities of God, not His nature. Thus, it is important to understand that the Godhead is three personalities in one nature. This statement does not violate the Law of Contradiction and accords with what the Bible says.

Objection 3:
       Jesus Denied That He is God

Some who argue against the Trinity claim that Jesus did not view Himself as God, and on several occasions denied His deity. One of the passages most often used to bolster this claim is Mark 10:17. In this passage, a wealthy young man ran to see Jesus and asked Him, “Good teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Jesus responded by saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” According to the skeptical view, Jesus is denying that He is God. But a closer look at Jesus’ comment reveals just the opposite to be the case. Notice that Jesus never denies that He is the “good teacher.” He simply makes the comment that there is only one Who is truly good, and that is God. Thus, if the young man’s statement is true that Jesus is the “good teacher” (and it is), and there is only one Who is “good,” and that is God, then Jesus is acknowledging His deity, not denying it. As with all discussion of Scripture, it is important to look at what the text actually says and not what other people claim the text says [NOTE: For a more complete list of answers to objections to Christ’s deity see Lyons, 2006; in addition, for a thorough case for the deity of Christ, see Butt and Lyons, 2006.]

CONCLUSION

A discussion of the nature and personalities of God is important for several reasons. First, if God includes information about Him in the Bible, then He must want humans to study and learn that information. Second, a misunderstanding of God’s personalities could result in a spiritually catastrophic conclusion that is at odds with God’s Word. If a person misunderstands that Jesus is the eternal God on par with the Father and Spirit, that person may never grasp the significance of the fact that God in the flesh came to Earth to die for his or her sins. Such a misunderstanding may also cause that person to fail to honor Christ as the Bible commands. Jesus stated “that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23). Only if a person understands that the Son is God just as the Father is God can that person honor the Son “just as” he or she honors the Father. Thus, a discussion of the Trinity is necessary to sound Christian doctrine and practice.
If a person approaches the sum of Scripture motivated by an earnest desire to know the truth about the Godhead, that person can, with complete confidence, infer from the biblical premises and implications that the Godhead is three personalities—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in one nature.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2006), Behold! The Lamb of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Davies, Matt (2009), “God—A Single Entity and Not a Trinity,” The Gospel Truth, http://www.the-gospel-truth.info/bible-teachings/god-unity-or-trinity/.
“Is the Trinity Biblical?” (2011), United Church of God, http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/is-the-trinity-biblical.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961 reprint), The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lyons, Eric (2006), “Answering Christ’s Critics,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=6&article=578&topic=71.
Miller, Dave (2005), “Jesus’ Claims to Deity,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=2465.
“Nature” (2015), Merriam-Webster,  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature.
Olbright, Owen (1999), The Holy Spirit: Person and Work (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Pearce, Fred (no date),“Jesus: God the Son or the Son of God? Does the Bible Teach the Trinity?” http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/jesus.htm.
“Personality” (2015), Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personality.
Warren, Thomas B. (1982), Logic and the Bible (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press)

Copyright © 2015 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Existence of God” section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
Apologetics Press
on No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)