About a month ago, we were discussing identity in my metaphysics class. What's interesting about identity is that because it is so difficult to define, it can more easily be defined by what it is not (ie: identity can include things such as separability/inseparability, dependence/independence, cause/effect, but it is not in every case defined by those things). We eventually discussed whether or not identity can really be separated from the idea of otherness, or if we can only really know identity by knowing otherness. Somewhere in the conversation, one of the student's attempted to use God as a counterexample, by saying that God can know himself (identity) without experiencing otherness. Following that comment, someone else used the otherness of the persons of the trinity to argue against the aforementioned claim. In responding, one of my professors offhandedly mentioned that he thought that God didn't have to exist in three persons, that he could have existed as one if he had so chosen. i'm curious what anyone else has to say in response to this. Maybe it's just me, but something seems very wrong about that statement. anyone have any critiques? comments?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
hey bri. i dont have a clearly organizable solution, but i have some thoughts i am willing to share. if you want to get into more detail, or if you want warrant for these beliefs, i can recommend some books. let me know what you think.
"whether or not identity can really be separated from the idea of otherness, or if we can only really know identity by knowing otherness."
it would seem that identity is something possessed by an object, and it is not a relation. therefore although it may be easy to describe identity relatively, it does not seem ultimately accurate to me.
"God can know himself (identity) without experiencing otherness."
this has to be true under the xian worldview. creation was voluntary, and God existed "before" it. during such "time" God did know Himself and comprehend His own identity full well. interestingly enough, the trinitarian view of God offers a phenomonal amount of explanatory power when it comes to pondering how God could be everything we think a God should.
when you think about something, you form an image of it in your mind. in kantian psychology the object itself is called the noumena and its image in your mind is called the phenomena.
when God thinks about Himself, He forms an image of Himself. one difference between this occurence and our human experience is that God's thinking about Himself such as to form an image of Himself is active, whereas when I look at a coke bottle and think about it, my mind passively forms an image of the coke bottle. the other difference is that in this particular case, God's knowledge of Himself results in the formation of a second Divine Person. we call Him the Son of God because the first Person actively generates Him, which is similar to the way an earthly father is active in the procreative act while the mother is passive.
the Father and the Son love each other, which results in the spiration of a third Divine Person called the Spirit of God.
my personal favorite extrabiblical work on this is Aquinas' Summa. when i read it i felt that years of southern baptist teaching had ripped me off by not explaining the trinity to me properly.
anyway, even "before" creation God existed as triune, resulting in the ability to love, for He contained within Himself multiple Persons such that there could be lovers and beloveds. he could know Himself and experience "otherness" as regards Personhood. but it seems that self-knowledge came "first" (logically first, but not chronologically first - all three persons are eternal and have no beginning), and resulted in otherness.
obviously these are complicated issues and we could talk all night about them, so i will address your real question.
"God didn't have to exist in three persons'
questions about possibility regarding anything about God is problematic from the outset. every possible world stems from God. it could not have been that God did not exist. even it were possible, and if God did not exist, then nothing would exist, for nothing can come from nothing. if nothing existed nothingness would have been necessary, meaning that there could not be any possible worlds.
still, it seems reasonable to believe that God has both inherent, essential attributes and accidental attributes. essential attributes being those that constitute His nature, accidental attributes being those that He did not have to have. i would say that when Jesus voluntarily took on humanity He gained some accidental attributes. the fact that humanity is the most like God of any other creation lent itself to the incarnation, which is said to have resulted in the ownership of two distinct natures by one Person.
as to His triune nature, it becomes more difficult to decipher. it strikes me that God would have to have had at least two persons, as He would have had to be loving, which requires two objects. to be Personal and satisfied would require at least two Persons: a Personal God who only exists as one Person would be lonely (but a God must have aseity, metaphysically and emotionally). creation was not due to any need (and yet how beautiful it is that man can bring delight to God).
so my own personal opinion is that God necessarily exists as three eternal, uncreated Persons in perfect fellowship with each other, needing nothing. whether it is a logical contradiction to posit a God who exists as less than three Persons I am uncertain of.
although natural theology and other philosophical enterprises can get us pretty far, the reality is that we are broken, and there are a lot os specifics about God and history that we can only find out through Special Revelation. that God is triune is more important than whether it is so be necessity. moreover, the implications of His triunity for our lives is what we should be after.
wayne grudem has some decent stuff about it in his systematic theology.
Post a Comment