Part three on the Logical Problem of the Trinity: The Twofoldness of Divine Truth, Attempts to Reconcile apparent Biblical Contradictions and Bayesian arguments for God being essentially twofold in his nature. Suggested further reading and bibliography over all three blogposts at the end
The Twofoldness of Divine Truth
Having assessed the most popular models of the Trinity
intended to solve the logical problem of the Trinity and found them at best
unpersuasive and at worst opening the possibility to heresy, I will now present
an alternative approach. Modalism and tritheism are two extremes, taking an
unbalanced approach to the truth revealed in the Bible. Modalism takes God
being one and pushes it to a heretical extreme and tritheism takes God being
three and pushes it to a heretical extreme. The twofoldness of divine truth
avoids the extremes and Kangas notes it allows one to “maintain a testimony
faithful to the whole truth of God’s revelation in the Scriptures” (Kangas,
1976).
Robert Govett (1813-1901) was a British theologian,
influenced by the Plymouth Brethren, who authored the principle in his work
“The Twofoldness of Divine Truth”. The work is not widely read but has played a
significant role in the teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, which
entailed reading in China due to a Watchman Nee translation of the work into
Chinese (Lee,1991) and still holds influence among strains of the Brethren. As
such it is a work that has not been engaged with by western Christian
Philosophers, and it’s important to note the context for the work is one
wherein divisions were being formed within the church by various denominations
taking the extreme of either side of a matter of truth .
Govett speaks on this twofoldness saying “The twofoldness of
truth as offered to our view in Holy Writ is one strong argument of its not
being the work of man. It is the glory of man’s intellect to produce oneness.
It is to trace different results to one principle, to clear it of ambiguities,
to show how, through varied appearances, one law holds. Anything that stands in
the way of the completeness of this, he eludes or denies” (Govett, undated),
(Kangas, 1976).
“But,” as Govett continues, “it is not so with God. In
nature he is continually acting with two seemingly opposed principles.”
(Govett, undated), (Kangas, 1976). Examples Govett gives of this are the two
forces that keep planets moving in order around the sun, being two forces
pulling each particle of matter in two opposite directions at the same instant-
leave it to one of them and the Earth would fly away into space, to the other
it would be drawn down to the surface of the sun. Another is how life is
supported by two airs or gases of opposite qualities- to breath one of them
alone we would die in a few minutes, but together life is sustained. He notes
even the salt eaten by humans is a compound of two substances, either of which
alone would destroy us (Govett, undated). Of importance is the fact Govett’s
examples still hold true to this day, and there are even more that science has
discovered since his time. Of important note is that Govett’s examples don’t
have incoherence of the kind presented by the logical problem of the Trinity,
rather they demonstrates our inability to reduce the laws governing nature into
a single underlying principle or law clear of ambiguities- there is not a single
law governing nature but ones wherein two forces or developments in opposition
harmoniously and wondrously work alongside one another.
There are therefore two distinct cases of twofoldness: cases
wherein there are two opposed principles which cannot be reduced to a single
underlying principle which operate in the world and cases wherein there are two
opposed principles which cannot be reduced to a single underlying principle
where we cannot grasp how they operate in the world. The examples that one can
produce from our scientific study of nature largely take on the form of the
first case, whereas from study of the scripture’s examples from the second. The
primary reason for this is that the realm of scientific and biblical require
different tools for engagement- the sciences being grasped through mind,
whereas the biblical is grasped via the spirit. For Govett we can experience
God as Trinity, however we cannot grasp how it is God is Trinity in our mind,
whereas with the natural realm of science we can both experience (via
experimentation for deeper realms) and grasp it in our mind.
More recent examples of twofoldness arising from the
sciences are the fundamental opposition of general relativity (GR) and quantum
mechanics (QM) (The Final Contradiction, undated) and several forces within nature working in
opposition to each other such as the strong nuclear force and weak nuclear
force acting and balancing each other; the cosmological constant acting as a
repulsive force in space-time balanced by the Higgs Field and the balance
between matter and antimatter in the universe (Hainline, 2015).
These examples from nature give the account merit in that
twofoldness within nature is evidence of the twofoldness of the Trinity as it
raises its probability relative to what it would be otherwise. It also gives
the account predictive power in the following two ways: it predicts that
scientists will not be able to reduce instances of two opposed principles or laws to an
underlying principle or law within nature, and that the number of examples one
can cite of opposing principles or laws within nature increases as our
scientific knowledge of the world grows. For the purpose of this project
however it is more important that the twofoldness holds in the scriptures as it
will support a Govettian reading as well as ensuring the failure of
alternatives. Presenting the twofoldness in the scripture and producing an
inductive argument alongside the twofoldness in creation in favour of it, and
then defending the argument from possible objections will now therefore follow.
Twofoldness in the Word
Discussing the matter of twofoldness, Govett says, “It is
not then to be wondered at, if two seemingly opposed principles are found
placed side by side in the Scripture. ‘Unity in plurality, plurality in unity’
is the main principle on which both the world and the Scripture are
constructed” (Govett, undated). With relation to contradiction within the Word
Govett remarks, “It is not necessary to reconcile them before we are bound to
receive and act upon the two. It is enough that the Word of God distinctly
confirms them both” (Govett, undated). As Govett says, “The claim on our
reception is not that we can unite them, but that God has testified both”
(Govett, undated). Many disagreements within the Church are uneccessary for as
Govett states, “Opposite views of truth arise from different parts of the
subject being viewed at different times” (Govett, undated). In relation to
revelation Govett says: “Thus does God try His people. will they trust him when
He affirms that view of truth which runs counter to their temperaments and
intellectual bias? or will they trample on one of His sayings in their zeal for
the other? The humble, child-like saint will acknowledge and receive both; for
his Father, who cannot err, testifies to each alike” (Govett, undated),
(Kangas, 1976).
The principles relation to the nature of God is noted as
follows: “The same twofoldness of truth appears in the Scripture statements
concerning the nature of God. It affirms His unity …. But the Scripture as
plainly affirms the distinction of persons in the Godhead. ‘Unity in plurality
and plurality in unity’ is the assertion here. This master truth, which takes
its rise in the nature of the Godhead, flows out into all His works” (Govett,
undated), (Kangas, 1976).
His claim that this “master-truth … takes its rise in the
nature of the Godhead.” Is of particular importance for as Kangas claims it
means “God’s revelation in the Scriptures, being twofold, is an expression of
the very nature of God himself” (Kangas, 1976). God’s being three and one and
one in three is expressed in twofoldness. Examples given in the wider scripture
of the principle include God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Responsibility , The
Extent of Redemption, The Perseverance of the Believers, Justification—by Faith
or by Works, The Character of God, The Nature of the Saviour (Christ’s divine
and human nature) , The Status of the Saviour, Worship, Means of Edification,
The Spirit of Worship, The Means of Grace, The Church, The Dispensations of
God, and The Word of God.
Attempts to reconcile apparent Biblical contradictions
There is a vast literature attempting to reconcile these
apparent contradictions, and doctrinal systems that adopt either extreme. For
my purpose I will respond to those who have tried to reconcile the two natures
of Christ within a single system, so that I avoid a begging the question
accusation from those whose position on the Trinity I have already opposed.
This is because those who have developed models of the Trinity to solve the
logical problem, have also developed models for these other instances. I will therefore address only advocates of
models of the Trinity I have already been critical of, so this discussion will
accordingly only present and respond to Morris’s and Swinburne view of how to
overcome contradiction in the two natures of Christ, while at the same time
recognising that there are other approaches available which I will not be
discussing here. For the twofoldness to hold true it assumes all these models
will be unsuccessful.
Philosophers and theologians throughout the ages have
attempted to address how it can be that Jesus Christ is 100% human, 100% divine
and an individual who is identical to God the Son. In holding to these claims a
violation of a law of noncontradiction arises described by John Hick as follows
“there is an obvious puzzle as to how the same being can jointly embody those
attributes of God and of humanity that are apparently incompatible. God is
eternal, whilst humans have a beginning in time; God is infinite, humans
finite; God is the creator of the universe, including humanity, whilst humans
are part of God’s creation; God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, whilst
humans are limited in power and knowledge and have a bounded location; and so
on. Let us call this the incompatible-attributes problem” (Hick, 1993).
Thomas V. Morris has attempted to address this problem by
claiming that assumptions we make about what it is to be human are false. This
is achieved by his distinguishing between being fully not merely P, and being
fully and merely P. As an example, “a cuboid has six faces, which form a convex
polyhedron. Broadly, the faces of the cuboid can be any quadrilateral. More
narrowly, cuboids are made from 6 rectangles, which are placed at right angles”
(Cuboid - simple.LinkFang.org, 2019). However, a cuboid is not merely a
rectangle, as it has a higher property of being three-dimensional. Morris’s
thought here is that similarly God the Son incarnate is fully but not merely
human, having all the properties needed to be human, but also higher-level
divine properties (Morris, 1991).
Another distinction Morris draws attention to is the one
between properties common among humans and those which are essential to humans.
If a property is essential it means it is universal, entailing that all
essential human properties are by necessity common human properties. The
reverse does not hold however as a property can be common without being
essential, for example dishonesty is a common human property but it is not an
essential human property, so Jesus’s humanity would not be questionable by not
being dishonest. This entails that there is no conflict with a law of
non-contradiction with the incarnation as the assumption that commonly
possessed properties of mere humans such as limited knowledge and power are
necessary for being fully human are false (Morris, 1991).
The primary concern I have with Morris’s account is that it
views the only conditions of being human as having a human body and a human
mind (Morris, 1991). This I take to be a flawed assumption as Christian
theologians and philosopher before Peter Abelard (d. 1142) held a view of man
according to which man has three parts: a physical part, an internal part, and
then a third yet deeper part where we are one with God. For the first 12
centuries of Christian thought, the interior of man was considered by most to
be two-fold (the exterior of man was still another part--a third part). One of
these internal parts consisted of memoria/intellectus/voluntas; the yet deeper
part was called different things by different authors--sometimes
"spirit," sometimes, "soul," sometimes "heart."
This view of man was almost universal among Christians, and even after the 12th
century, has been maintained by many Christian theologians, especially those
who did not get swept up in scholasticism and its descendants.
I have not the space to present a defence of a tripartite
view of man here but will for now just
list some of the benefits: it gives a reflection of threeness of the Godhead-
there being three parts of man’s being (body, soul and spirit), three inward
parts of the soul (mind, emotion and will) and three parts of the spirit
(conscience, fellowship and intuition). It also best captures the complete
record in the scriptures of man and his relation to God. The functions separate
from the human body and mind on this account are therefore the conscience,
fellowship and intuition, and these reside in the spirit, and I therefore view
Morris’s conditions of being human as just having a human body and human mind
as problematic.
Another contention I have is that on Morris’s view God the
Son incarnate is limited in power and knowledge as the Son has both a divine
and human mind, sometimes relying solely upon the abilities of his human mind.
This is problematic as it opens the door to the false doctrine of the
Nestorians who held that the two natures divinity and humanity in Christ are
distinct and separate- if the Son has both a divine and human mind sometimes
relying solely upon one it entails that the human mind is separate from the
divine Christ becoming God and man in one body, rejected by the third general
Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 as improper (Lee, 1971). The orthodox teaching
is that Christ has both divinity and humanity, each being fully complete but
united in the body of one person, with no separation confusion or change into a
new nature- 100% God and 100% man.
Richard Swinburne’s has argued that God the Son incarnate
has a single mind with two ranges of consciousness. To understand Swinburne’s
perspective on incarnation it’s important to give context to his view of
humanity. For Swinburne in general a soul is human if it has a human body and
has the ability of “acting, acquiring beliefs, sensations and desires through
it” (Swinburne,1994). This entails a soul is human only if it has a human body
(Werther,undated).
On Swinburne’s view we are human, however not essentially
so. This is because it is a necessary condition of having a body to be human,
and it is conceivable we exist without a body or with a very different kind of
body. While no soul is essentially human, one soul became human by choice. On
this perspective by entering humanity and acquiring a human range of
consciousness, God the Son did not lose omnipotence or omniscience, rather
other ways of accessing the world are obtained described by Swinburne as “a way
of operating which is limited and feels limited” (Swinburne,1989). References
in the gospels to the Son’s ignorance and powerlessness are therefore a result
of the Son only relying on his human range of consciousness and abilities
(Werther,undated).
I have the same issue with Swinburne’s view of humanity as I
do with Morris’s- namely that it views of the conditions for what it is to be
human are incomplete- acting, acquiring beliefs, sensations and desires are
only functions of the soul and the body on the tripartite view of man. It is
the case that all living creatures will have these functions to various levels
of degree (humans being of the highest function) however it is the functions of
the spirit that belongs to man alone. Such a natural theology will produce the
following perspective of what is contained in the universe: body (e.g. stars,
rocks etc), body and soul (e.g. dogs, lions etc) and then humans as the height
of creation as body, soul and spirit. For the council at Constantinople
Apollinaris’ perspective of Christ was deemed heretical for the very reason
that it eliminated the human spirit from Jesus’ humanity, for the Divine Logos
(Sollier,1907), the same error committed by Swinburne in adopting a view of
Christ as body, soul and logos with two ranges of consciousness coming from the
human soul and divine logos.
As such Swinburne and Morris’s models of the incarnation
face a similar problem to their Trinitarian counterparts which lead to latent
or explicit tritheism or modalism, their incarnation ones leading to a latent
or explicit Nestorianism or Apollinarism.
For the advocate of the twofoldness of divine truth it is
just a matter of recognising that scriptures identify Christ as fully God and
fully man in respective portions, and not emphasising one aspect over the
other- fully accepting both regardless of a model existing and recognising this
will be the case regularly with the scriptures as a result of God’s own nature
flowing out into his works.
Arguments for God being essentially twofold in his
nature
The instances of twofoldness are therefore reflective of the
distinction between the essential Trinity (God in his essential nature as
three-one) and the economical Trinity (God’s role in creation as documented by
science and his relation to the world as documented in the scriptures).
Swinburne has noted that Bayes’s theorem entails that
P(h|e&k)>P(h|k) if and only if P(e|h&k)>P(e|k). He notes that
this is a principle of importance which Mackie characterises as the relevance
criterion. Swinburne states “it follows from it by a fairly short step of logic
that P(h|e&k) >P(h|k) if and only if P(e|h&k) >P(e| ∼h&k).
This says that a hypothesis is confirmed by evidence if and only if that
evidence is more likely to occur if the hypothesis is true than if it is false”
(Swinburne,2004).
For my particular purpose I will produce two arguments in
favour of a case that God is twofold in his essential nature from this. For the
first twofoldness in creation and world is shown to be more likely given God is
twofold in his essential nature than if he is not. Accordingly h God is twofold
in his essential nature (gt), k God exists, God is triune, all models of the
Trinity explaining how God is triune are unsuccessful and God's nature flows
out into his works (gf), and e twofold economical works in relation to the
creation (examples of twofoldness within the natural realm) and humanity
(twofold doctrines other than the Trinity)
(ge). Given the content of k alone I take the prior probability of the
hypothesis gt to be no more or less than 0.5. My reason for this is that given
it contains the content God is triune and the models are all unsuccessful this
means the alternative of the twofoldness is still viable, there is however no
positive reason to accept it, so given the content of k alone I do not see any
grounds for either claiming that God is essentially twofold in his nature or is
not making the probability of P(gt/gf) 0.5.
The key assumption of the argument is the background
knowledge gf containing God’s nature flows out into his works, so I will
briefly give some reasons to think that this is more likely true than false.
For one thing we have a vast inductive case that a beings nature flows out into
their works from the vast array of life on planet earth- for example the human
nature alone has a capacity possible of writing and comprehending philosophical
works- the nature of the human brain flowing out into the works of philosophy.
By contrast the Giraffe nature as having a very long neck flows out into its
works of eating leaves from high trees. It is this reason that Giraffes do not
read or write philosophical works and humans do not go around eating from high
up leaves from trees with their bodies. As such we have a very strong inductive
case for thinking that a living beings nature flows out into its works, and
therefore given God is a living being, his nature too would flow out into his
works. The reason gf is taken to be the background knowledge within the
argument is that if we don’t have this knowledge there is no reason to think
that God’s economical works bear any relation to God’s essential nature,
whereas with this knowledge the two are intertwined- as Karl Rahner put it “the
economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the
economic Trinity” (Rahner, 1970).
Verbally the argument runs as follows:
P1 God’s economical activity is twofold in relation to the
creation as documented by science and the world as documented in the scriptures
P2 This twofold economical activity is more likely if God is
essentially twofold than if he is not given God exists, is triune, all models
of the Trinity explaining how God is triune are unsuccessful and his nature
flows out into his works
P3 If God is essentially twofold these instances of twofold
economical activity are more likely than if he is not
C God is twofold in his essential nature
Formally the argument runs as follows:
P1 ge
P2 P(ge|gt&gf)>P(ge|∼gt&gf)
P3 P(ge|gt)>P(ge|∼gt)
C gt
Assuming P(gf) is more likely true than not (>0.5) the
argument demonstrates the hypothesis gt makes ge more likely than ∼gt,
as it makes it more likely to occur if gt is true rather than false. Given
P(gt/gf) 0.5 this evidence alongside the prior probability of gt given gf makes
P(gt)>0.5 and P(∼gt)<0.5.
An objection to this argument is that just because we do not
have an explanation which removes the twfoldness of God’s economical activity
within the creation and documented in the scriptures, it does not mean we will
have a single underlying explanation of these instances in the future. With the
case of creation physicists are exploring many solutions to the fundamental
opposition between QM and GR such as string theory, loop quantum gravity and
m-theory. Most physicists hold either QM is wrong, GR is wrong, or both QM and
GR are wrong. This is in opposition to the advocate of twofoldness of truth
within nature who holds QM and GR’S fundamental opposition is just another
instance of us being unable reduce the laws governing nature into a single
underlying principle or law clear of ambiguities- it is the peak example of
there not being a single law governing nature but ones wherein two forces or
developments in opposition harmoniously and wondrously work alongside one
another. Furthermore, these balancing of
forces within nature would be explained
by the long sought-after theory of everything.
In response to rejecting twofoldness within nature on the
grounds of theories such as string theory, loop quantum gravity and m-theory,
none of these theories are experimentally verified, rather they are entirely
theoretical. It is a fundamental of science that experimental confirmation is
the standard for true science, these theories not only failing this standard
but not even being theoretically conclusive (Tipler,2014). Physicists who claim
that either GR or QM are wrong, or both wrong, also face the problem that GR
and QM are both extremely well verified by experiment (MIT.edu, undated), (Sutter,2018).
I therefore do not find this to be a forceful objection to the inductive
argument from instances of twofoldness with God’s economical activity in
relation to creation.
With the case of twofoldness within the scriptures it is
true that doctrines central to Christianity have important philosophical
implications or presuppositions and work in the intersection between philosophy
and Christianity has become more prevalent. It is therefore possible solutions
to these economical instances of twofoldness in the form of an underlying
explanation which is not twofold can be accomplished via reason. This view is
problematic though- the instances of what are currently reason transcendent
doctrines are a great deal, and have been so for the past 2000 years, the
numbers not having decreased overtime- there would be some merit in this
approach if it had had some results, but not a single instant of twofoldness
cited by Govett in the nineteenth century has since had a successful
explanation via human reason, removing the twofoldness . I therefore do not
find this objection to the inductive argument from instances of twofoldness
with God’s economical activity forceful.
It is this that give the grounds for the second argument h
God is twofold in his essential nature (gt), k if God is twofold in his
essential nature it ensures all model to solve logical problem of the Trinity
are unsuccessful (gtu) and e all model to solve logical problem of the Trinity
are unsuccessful (umt).
Verbally the argument runs as follows:
P1 All models of the Trinity in response to the logical
problem of the Trinity are unsuccessful
P2 If God is essentially twofold in his nature all models of
the Trinity in response to the logical problem of the Trinity will be
unsuccessful as God being twofold in his essential nature ensures all models to
solve logical problem of the Trinity are unsuccessful
P3 All models of the Trinity in response to the logical
problem of the Trinity being unsuccessful, makes God’s essential nature as
twofold more likely than if he is not
C God is twofold in his essential nature
Formally the argument runs as follows:
P1 umt
P2 P(umt|gt>u)>P(umt|∼gt>u)
P3 P(umt|gt)>P(umt|∼gt)
C gt
Assuming P(gtu) is highly likely close to (1) the argument
demonstrates the hypothesis gt makes umt more likely than ∼gt,
as it makes it more likely to occur if gt is true rather than false.
Concluding remarks
In conclusion first the project presented modalism, tritheism and co-inherence as the way to avoid these heretical extremes. The project then moved on to the logical problem of the Trinity the social, psychological and constitution models of the Trinity in response to it being introduced and found to be at best unpersuasive and at worst ‘opening the door’ to the heretical extreme of modalism or tritheism. An alternative approach in Govett’s twofoldness of divine truth was presented and engaged with to the extent of showing its merit given contemporary scientific understanding, defending it from a possible begging the question accusation in my particular use of it and producing inductive arguments in favour of holding God to be essentially twofold from twofold economical evidence and the failure of alternatives.
Suggested further readings which were used in
extensive consultation in gathering background knowledge to construct this work
are below yet above the reference list. I’m particularly thankful for the
contribution of Ron Kangas’s work “Modalism tritheism
or the pure revelation of the triune God” (1976) which was used in
identifying history of heresy in the Church and how to respond which were
easily accessible to me due to his prudent and insightful research
correspondingly acting as a sound foundation for the project:
https://contendingforthefaith.org/en/modalism-tritheism-or-the-pure-revelation-of-the-triune-god/
https://www.affcrit.com/pdfs/2010-Spring/10_01_rf.pdf
https://contendingforthefaith.org/en/the-twofoldness-of-divine-truth-by-robert-govett/
https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?xid=1J31OR7M7X77A
http://www.open-letter.org/
https://contendingforthefaith.org/en/the-error-of-denying-that-the-infinite-god-became-a-finite-man-through-incarnation/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Church_controversies
https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572
[1] See Thomas McCall “Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism?” for more extensive discussion
Comments
Post a Comment