Philip Hilton scribbles,
Mr. Ahern recently released a post referencing one of our conversations about the Trinity. I actually posted a comment, but apparently the internet swallowed it up, and so I wrote this post. I’m writing not about beauty/grotesqueness and the Trinity, but about the Trinity in Things, which was the discussion point of our original argument. In that original argument, he argued that it was reasonable to see types of the Trinity in various relationships on earth (correct me if I’m wrong), and I stated that it was arbitrary. An example of this type-seeing (for the uninitiates) would be a husband and wife. The husband represents God the Father, the wife represents God the Son, and the bond between them (marriage) is the Holy Spirit.
Now, firstly, I expect you to agree with me. Don’t you think it’s fairly arbitrary to see the wife as a type of God the Son? I mean, God isn’t female, for one thing. You might perhaps, after some thinking, suggest that perhaps marriage isn’t a real “type” of the Trinity, but the parent-son relationship is, since this allows the parents to represent God the Father, and the son (or daughter) to represent God the Son, and we can call the bond between them the Holy Spirit.
Still, it remains arbitrary. An equivalent case would be if I compared, say, my brother’s swimming style to Michael Phelps’. It may be similar in certain cases, nevertheless, that does not mean that my brother represents Michael Phelps in any way. Nor does it mean that Michael Phelps represents my brother.
Admittedly, since God is the creator of all things, we may reasonably assume that he left his mark on creation. Nevertheless, there are two types of marks. First, there is a single quality left in creation, such as beauty, or strength, whatever they may be. We might, in fact, dispute the existence of such qualities, but bear with me for a moment. Second, there is this other quality which we are supposed to believe exists, i.e, “triunity”. Triunity differs very significantly from beauty, and is much harder to discern.
For instance, suppose we have a certain relationship that groups in sixes. Is that an evidence of triunity, since six is a multiple of two? What about a certain relationship that groups in twenty-fours? Then too, can invisible things form part of a triune relationship, such as the case above, of marriage?
Moreover, why is not marriage a “quadriune”? — the woman, the man, the children, and the marriage that binds them? Clearly, this particular instance is awfully ambiguous, as are most of the other instances generally given.
All in all, so many questions remain about how triunity expresses itself in nature, that I feel that any instance of a triune relationship must be severely questioned before being admitted as an instance of God in nature. A given situation may be groomed to be quadriune, triune, quinquiune or whatever, which demands great caution on our part in recognizing *any* situation as triune.
In short, I dissaprove of any classifying any relationship as triune, simply because, as I said the mathematics can be so easily twitched to do it. And as easily as making a triune relationship, one might decide that God is four, and start finding evidence of quadriunity all around the globe.
|
Posted at 8:04 am EST on the 21st of August 2008 by P. B. Hilton. Under Philosophy, Sundry There are 8 replies. |
 |
| Pontification Ad Nauseam | ||
Is a blog of developing Christian writers, their minds, and their ideas.
Copyright MMIX. All Rights Reserved by Pontification Ad Nauseam And Its Respective Contributors. Powered by Wordpress. Pontification Ad Nauseam uses advanced web technology. For the best user experience please use Safari or Firefox 3.5+. |
You’re a blockhead.
Well, I’m glad I gave you the link for THIS.
I don’t think examples have to be clear-cut… I don’t think everything has to be one thing or the other. I think things can be two or three or twenty-three things at once (hey, that’s Trinitarian! w0ot!). Like the story of the prodigal son– some pastors will say it’s about the son, some will insist it’s about the brother. Without being wishy-washy postmodern, it can be about both of them at the same time. So the husband-wife relationship can mirror the Trinity while also not being like the Trinity, and also be like the Trinity (except differently) all at the same time.
According to the original discussion, John said “everything reflects the Trinity” on some level. Or in your paraphrase, he said, “It is reasonable to see types of the Trinity in various relationships on earth.” You countered that such observation is “arbitrary.”
It doesn’t appear you are both discussing things at the same level. John’s primary argument seems to be that relationships or occurrences or states of nature can reasonably Reflect the image of God, or the Trinity. As a specific subset of this reasonable possibility of divine reflection, he discussed the necessity of ugliness. But generally, he seemed to argue that, because the entire created order proceeds from God’s nature and His image, the contents of the created order therefore reflect back to God — to the Trinity — His nature.
While running the risk of making an assumption without having participated in your initial debate, it seems to me that the crux of the matter is not the mere numerical characteristic of the Trinity. Yes, the Trinity is 3 Persons. Not 2 and not 4, but 3, as Monty Python’s Cleric might say. This is the supreme paradox, of course, because the Trinity is also One. Its mere numerical attributes are not its essence. To get bogged down in a debate about the merits of a Comparison between a material element of creation and the Trinity, based upon the mathematics of triunity or quadriunity, simply misses the point.
Comparisons should not be at issue here. We are not Comparing God or the Trinity to Marriage. Neither are we Comparing the elements involved in a marriage (whether the man or the wife or a child or the bond between them all). And we are certainly not Comparing the sex of a female to God, realizing that God is not female, and thus denouncing the whole thing as silly. For silly indeed it would be if we did that. And arbitrary.
We are not Comparing but rather acknowledging that the created order Reflects. We are not dissecting the various components of an armchair and noting that — by golly! — it’s got an armrest, a backrest, and a seat-cushion (3!) and therefore is a type of Trinity.
As Dorothy Sayers implied, a created order cannot deny its fundamental makeup. Because God infused His nature into creation, creation of necessity reflects that nature.
Silly comparisons between nature and the Trinity certainly exist. Mathematics can certainly twist any example to fit its own predetermined conclusion. But that twisting only occurs when there is a fixation on mere numbers rather than on the Trinity’s nature and creation as a whole. In such cases, a cry of “that’s arbitrary” is correct. Frankly, though, I don’t think that’s what John was doing. Rather, he seems to assert that, on some level, it is Reasonable to think that everything “Reflects” (his word) the Trinity. Whether we successfully recognize or horribly pervert that reflection is another issue. But if we do acknowledge, as all Christians must, that Creation flows from God’s very nature, it is dangerous to assert that certain parts of nature — including Ugliness — are exempt from reflecting their Maker.
Besides, I think the marriagehusbandwife thing is much less a picture of the Trinity than of Christ and the church.
I don’t know how on topic this post is, but when I read Philip’s post, that was the first thing that popped into my head.
Maybe you should find a better example? Or maybe that is the best example because it shows clearly the ambiguity and double nature of such things.
I don’t know. Just random thoughts.
Good post, Philip.
I think Philip is approaching this from an analytic philosophical approach whereas John and Nate are taking a more theological one. The fact is, while the idea that signs of the Trinity can be seen in nature may be true, it’s not an idea that has a firm logical basis. The only thing to support it is, as Nate says, it seems that “it is Reasonable to think that everything ‘Reflects’… the Trinity.”
Well, perhaps it is reasonable from a certain point of view, but try to prove it with some sort of logical formula and you run up against all sorts of walls, and I think this is what Phil was pointing out.
Firstly, it is possible that a thing has multiple “significances” just as we may say that a given figure, say, a balance may represent both Justice and Truth. But when we talk about mathematical significances, we’re talking about something completely different. A thing cannot be both three and five.
Secondly, Nate, you said things “reflect” the Trinity, and that we were not talking about comparisons. Yet if I were to ask for an example, a comparison would be required. So in a concrete sense, reflection implies comparison.
And yeah, Nick about summarizes my point of view.
Certainly something can have multiple significances. Also certainly, the innate mathematical characteristics of something (Trinity) cannot be perverted just so it can fit into a certain (obviously imperfect) comparison. 3 cannot be 5, as you say.
I don’t disagree with this. Neither do I think that the “reflection” of the Trinity excludes the possibility of “comparison.”
However, to reduce the ramifications of the Trinity to mere mathematics is decidedly out of context. Comparisons were the basis of your initial argument, after all (God is not female; the 3 persons of the Trinity are not equal to the 4 persons of certain families; your brother is not Michael Phelps). While comparisons must be made when drawing any connection, comparisons and numerical attributes are not the end goal.
The chief end of man is to glorify God. We glorify God by reflecting back his glory. Creation does that too. Connections or “significances” between the Trinity and parts of creation must have this as the focal point. Numbers are a mere (and sometimes unimportant) component. And a component a Whole does not make.
The doctrine about “quadriunity” is heresy, i.e. false doctrine. Indeed at the basis of “quadriunity” lies dualism, and dualism is heresy, i.e. false and very dangerous doctrine!