material_ class #4 - material class #4 - is the trinity a logical blunder god as three and one

7/31/2019 Material_ Class #4 - Material Class #4 - Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder God as Three and One

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/material-class-4-material-class-4-is-the-trinity-a-logical-blunder-god 1/13

205

Cp 14

Is the trInIty a LogICaL BLunder?god as three and one

Paul Copan

A ny Chistian wh has inteacte with Muslims Jehvah’s

Witnesses will eventually hea questins such as: Hw can G

be thee an ne? O, I Jesus was G, t whm was He cying ut

m the css, “My G, My G, why have Yu saken Me?”

(Matt 27:46).1 Untunately, in u age vanishing biblical lite-

acy, the aveage Chistian’s unestaning the inity is minimal

even hetex. Tis ignance is tagic seveal the easns:

many ail t ecgnize Chistianity’s unique ctine G; they

ae theee unable t een Chistian thxy; an they pehaps

ae nt being assiste within the Chistian cmmunity t wship

G “in . . . tuth” (Jhn 4:24). Fist, tinitaianism istinguishes

the Chistian aith m the vesins theism—namely, Juaism

an Islam, which ae unitaian; many Chistians seem unawae this

unique an cental tenet thei aith in the tiune G as Fathe,

Sn, an Spiit. Secn, Chistians ten t be inept at espning t

the antitinitaian thught an agumentatin Muslims, Jehvah’s

Witnesses, Mmns; many ae incapable aticulating an eec-

tive ctinal espnse t altenate thelgical pespectives, nt t

mentin ening an appeciating thei wn. Ti, the Chistian’s

wship is ten uninme an misguie because this ctinal

1 Unless thewise nte, Sciptue qutatins ae m the Hlman Chistian StanaBible.



206 PauL CoPan

ignance; I have hea eles an even pasts thank the Fathe

ying n the css ee t the Hly Spiit as “It.”Challenges exist nt nly within the chuch but als outside it. In u

pst-Septembe 11 wl, we cmmnly hea the slgan, “Chistians

an Muslims wship the same G.” Yes, Aab Chistians use the

tem Allah the tiune G lng bee the time Muhamma,

an many them still ! Hweve, these tw Abahamic aiths i-

vege shaply egaing the natue G: Muslims eject the ti-unity

G as heetical an blasphemus; this is shirk —ascibing patnes

t G.Te New Atheists have taken thei ptshts at Chistian ctine

an the cncept G. Richa Dawkins, instance, seems t have

little patience with (, I might a, unestaning abut) initaian

iscussins in chuch histy:

Rives meieval ink, nt t mentin bl, have been

squanee ve the “mystey” the inity, an in suppess-

ing eviatins such as the Aian heesy. Aius Alexania,

in the uth centuy, enie that Jesus was consubstantial

(i.e. the same substance essence) with G. What n

eath cul that pssibly mean, yu ae pbably asking?

Substance? What “substance”? What exactly yu mean by

“essence”? “Vey little” seems the nly easnable eply.2

a t such challenges, ppula Westen cultue tens wngly

t assume that “G” ees t a supreme person. Nt a ew Chistian

philsphes—I wn’t mentin any names—have eee t Gas “a pesn.” Tis is misleaing. Tree persons —Fathe, Sn, an

Spiit—ully shae in the one true God’s ientity. Fm etenity thee

has existe nt ne slitay person but a G-in-elatin, thee ivine

pesns ully lving an enjying ne anthe. Pesnal elatinships

i nt cme int existence when G ceate nite pesnal beings

(angels an humans). Relatinship has always existe in this tiune

ivine amily. Chistians shul nt think G apat m His sel-

evelatin as tiune, an this shul inm us in u wship Gan in u lie in the wl. Unlike many philsphical cnceptins

2 R. Dawkins, Te God Delusion (Bstn: Hughtn Miin C., 2006), 54.



Is the rinity a Logical Blunder? God as Tree and One 207

G as “whlly Othe,” an “Unmve Mve,” “Fist Cause,” the

“Gun all being,” the Chistian unestaning ejects such nn-elatinal abstactins in av a G wh is pesnal, intinsically

elatinal, an histy engaging. Tis ti-pesnal G, thugh “ve

all” (transcendent ), is als “in all” (immanent ) an “nt a m each

ne us” (Acts 17:27).

Tree Dangers to Avoid

Te Athanasian Cee (c. AD 500) attempts t make sense thebiblical ata that am G’s theeness an neness:

Nw the cathlic aith is that we wship One G in inity

an inity in Unity, neithe cnuning the Pesns n i-

viing the substance. F thee is ne Pesn the Fathe, an-

the the Sn, anthe the Hly Spiit. But the Ghea

the Fathe, the Sn, an the Hly Spiit, is One, the

Gly equal, the Majesty cetenal. . . . An yet nt thee ete-

nals but ne etenal, as als nt thee innites, n thee un-ceate, but ne unceate, an ne innite. S, likewise, the

Fathe is almighty, the Sn almighty, an the Hly Spiit al-

mighty; an yet nt thee almighties but ne almighty. S the

Fathe is G, the Sn G, an the Hly Spiit G; an yet

nt thee Gs but ne G. . . . F like as we ae cmpelle

by Chistian tuth t acknwlege evey Pesn by Himsel t

be bth G an L; s ae we bien by the cathlic e-

ligin t say, thee be thee Gs thee Ls. . . . S theeis ne Fathe nt thee Fathes, ne Sn nt thee Sns, an

ne Hly Spiit nt thee Hly Spiits.

In the histy Chistianity, the Westen chuch (Cathlic an

Ptestant) has stesse G’s unbreakable oneness o God’s being whee-

as the Easten Othx chuch has emphasize the distinctiveness o

the three persons . Tat sai, thx Chistian mulatins the

inity shul attempt t avi overemphasizing/denying ne thee



208 PauL CoPan

initaian unamentals; ing s cul lea t ctinal signicant

e:3

• Oveemphasizing threeness leas t titheism—a vesin

plytheism (many gs). Tis e, which is un in ne ve-

sin Mmnism, denies God’s oneness (mntheism).

• Oveemphasizing oneness leas t malism—that G is

just ne pesn wh appeas in ieent mes maniesta-

tins (e.g., as Fathe in the Ol estament, Sn in the New

estament, an Spiit uing the New estament chuch age).

Tis unitaian (as ppse t tinitaian) view G is cha-

acteistic much libeal thelgy which, example, ejects

Jesus’ ivinely authitative status; it denies God’s threeness .

• Rejecting equality leas t subinatinism. In this case the

thee pesns nt possess alike the ivine natue but ae a

kin hieachy. Accing t Jehvah’s Witnesses, the Fathe

alne is G; Jesus is “a g” an the st ceatue G mae;

an the Hly Spiit is nt pesnal but meely a ce. Tis sub-

inatinist e undermines the equality o the divine persons .

By cntast, the thx ctine the inity emphasizes that

nly ne G exists (neness). Tis G exists etenally in thee is-

tinct pesns—Fathe, Sn, an Spiit (theeness). Als, these pesns

ae ully equal in thei essential ivine attibutes an peectins

(equality).

3 R. Nicle, “Te Meaning the inity,” in P. n an J. D. Spicelan, es., One God inrinity (Westcheste, IL: Cnestne, 1980), 1–4.

O r t hod o x

y

Subordination

OneG

TeePesns

Equality

Modalism ritheism/ polytheism




Te Divine Family

Fm etenity, the tiune G has existe. Inee, the sel- sucient

inity Fathe, Sn, an Spiit have existe in thei ee, mutual sel-

giving an sel-eceiving lve. Relatinship cmmunin is intinsic

t this “husehl” ( ecnmy) ivine pesns wh, thugh is-

tinct m ne anthe, ae insepaably unite in the-iente lve.

Tis ivine inte- (an inne-) cnnectin mutuality, penness, an

ecipcity has n iniviualistic cmpetitin amng the amily mem-

bes but nly jy, sel-giving lve, an tanspaency. Rathe than being

sme islate sel slitay eg, G is supemely elatinal in His

sel-giving, the-iente natue. Within G is intimate union as

well as distinction, an unbeakable cmmunin pesns. Te pe-

sns the Ghea can be distinguished but nt separated . G is

bth community an unity .4

Althugh sme analgies the inity can be pblematic (e.g.,

wate’s thee states, which implies malism), the analgies may

pve me accuate, useul, an illuminating. Cnsie the myth-

lgical thee-heae g Cebeus that guas Haes’s gates. Tugh

a single ganism (substance), ne g (nt thee gs), he has thee

istinct centes awaeness, each with the same canine natue. (In

the wl we have cmpaable analgies in, say, tw-heae snakes

even insepaable Siamese twins; in such cases we have istinct centes

awaeness within ne unie ganism.) Likewise, G is ne im-

mateial sul (substance) with thee istinct centes cnsciusness,

atinality, will, an agency (pesns) wh ae eeply an necessaily

intecnnecte, an they shae the same unique ivine natue.

Because a elatinal G exists an chses t ceate humans in

His image, elatinality is cental t our ientity as humans. N wn-

e the en Cmmanments ivie int tw tables—u elatinship

t G an u elatinship t ellw human beings. Jesus Himsel

summaizes u twl uty: “lve the L yu G” an “lve

yu neighb” (Mak 12:30–31). We have been mae cmmunin

with G st an emst, but hw we ega ellw human beings

4 D. B. Hat, Te Beauty o the Infnite: Te Aesthetics o Christian ruth (Gan Rapis: Ee-mans, 2003), 174.



210 PauL CoPan

efects u spiitual cnitin (1 Jhn 4:20). We ecgnize what lve

is by the mel the sel-giving G in Chist (1 Jhn 3:16).Chistians have lng pnee the mystey the inity, an we’e

nt hee tying t emystiy the G whse natue an pupses can’t

be euce t tiy mulas manageable bxes. We shul celebate

the unathmable G, wh’s une n bligatin t human emans

t claiy eveything abut Himsel (Deut 29:29). An why think u

puny mins cul gasp these “secet things” (NASB) anyway?

Paul emins us that we knw patially an lack the claity abut

G’s natue an ways (1 C 13:9; c. Isa 55:9). “Te geat things the gspel” (as thelgian Jnathan Ewas put it) are astnishing,

but mystery partial knowledge esn’t imply contradiction. Let’s keep

this in min as we cnsie the ivine inity.

oward a Clearer Understanding of the rinity

What do the Sciptues mean when they tell us that G is bth

three an one? I Fathe, Sn, an Spiit ae ivine pesns, aen’t theethee Gs athe than ne? Classical New Englan Unitaians—wh

stesse the atheh G, the btheh man, an the neigh-

bh Bstn (!)—an thei ilk have suggeste that Chistians

just can’t cunt: 1+1+1 equals 3! Anthplgist Pascal Bye, a natu-

alist wh claims that eligin is simply a matte bain unctin an

suvival enhancement, is isainul eligius believes. He claims

that they n’t think citically, n’t check ut evience, an believe

what can’t be alsie. He as that Chistians seem paticulaly gull-ible an can’t think cectly. Bye specically mentins the “iati-

nal” ctine the inity. As it tuns ut, Bye himsel isn’t isplay-

ing the apppiate citical thinking an evience-checking he claims

believes ae lacking: inically, he pesents a ctine that no th-

x Chistian believes—“that thee pesns ae ne pesn.”5 N, the

Chistian believes that thee ae thee necessaily insepaable pesns

(nt “ne pesn”) wh shae ne ivine natue an substance.

5 P. Bye, Te Naturalness o Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Teory o Religion (Bekeley: Unive-sity Calinia Pess, 1994), 6; c. P. Bye, Religion Explained: Te Evolutionary Origins o Religious Tought (New Yk: Basic Bks, 2001), 300.




Withut tying t euce G t human mulas an gis, hw

can we, in aithul humility, bette gasp this cental Chistian ctine the inity? Pehaps the llwing cnsieatins can assist us.

First, Scripture reveals both a oneness to God and a threeness. Jesus’

st llwes wee eligius Jews, thx mntheists. Tey wee

mly cmmitte t G’s unique oneness in cntast t the ply-

theism the suuning natins. wice aily they wul ecite the

Shema (“Hea, O Isael”), eclaing G’s oneness: “Te Lord u

G, the Lord is ne” (Deut 6:4; c. Mak 12:29). An ealy Chistian

cee (AD 53) ams Jesus’ shaing in the ivine ientity as the “neL” (1 C 8:4–7), while steaastly eclaing that “thee is n G

but ne.” Even the emns hl t an thx mntheistic belie

(Jas 2:19).

G’s threeness is als appaent. In the Geat Cmmissin (Matt

28:18–20), Jesus tells His isciples t g an make isciples all na-

tins, “baptizing them in the name [nt names ] the Fathe an

the Sn an the Hly Spiit.” At Jesus’ baptism, a eenactment

the exus, Fathe an Spiit ae als pesent (Matt 3:16–17). Paul’sbeneictin expesses G’s theeness: “May the gace the Lord Jesus

Christ , an the lve God , an the ellwship the Holy Spirit be

with yu all” (2 C 13:14 NIV; c. 1 C 12:4–6). S while G is

ne, thee sel-istinctins exist within the Ghea.

Second, God is one in essence or nature but three in person. Tee an

ne aen’t in cntaictin hee; t be in cnfict, the same category or

relationship must be invlve. But threeness petains t pesns; oneness

petains t G’s natue essence. Tee isn’t ne ivine natue and thee ivine natues; thee aen’t thee pesns and ne pesn in the

Ghea.

A nature is what makes a thing (or person) what it is . G has cetain

chaacteistics that make Him what He is. He can’t not exist an is all-

g, example. An just as the Eath’s billins humans pssess

a cmmn natue that sets them apat m angels an aavaks, the

tiune pesns ae equally an ully G, shaing in the same natue

thugh at a much eepe, me unie level than humans. Cucial tvecming the cntaictin chage in the ctine the inity is



212 PauL CoPan

istinguishing between the nly ne ivine nature an the thee per-

sons wh pssess it. Tee aen’t thee Gs, but ne. When Jehvah’s Witnesses Muslims ask Chistians, “I Jesus was

ivine, t whm i he cy, ‘My G, My G, why have Yu sak-

en Me?’ (Matt 27:46),” these questines assume that i Jesus is G,

then it is impssible that anthe can shae the same ivine natue. We

can eject this withut incnsistency an even espn, “I the Father

is G, t whm is He speaking when He says to the Son, ‘Yu thne,

O G, is eve’ “Yu, L, . . . lai the unatin the eath’”

(Heb 1:8,10 NASB)?Tird, to distinguish between person and nature, we must keep in

mind two ways to use “is”—identity versus predication. Mak wain is

the pen name Samuel Langhne Clemens, the 26-cigas-a-ay

smke an auth Te Adventures o om Sawyer . wain es nt

have chaacteistics that Clemens es nt have. In the ws, when

we say, “Samuel Langhne Clemens is Mak wain,” we can just as

easily evese the names: “Mak wain is Samuel Langhne Clemens.”

Each thse statements inicates ientity: Mak wain = SamuelLanghne Clemens (an vice vesa). Te names, which ee t the

same pesn, ae ully intechangeable an thus ientical.

When it cmes t the inity, t say “Jesus is G” isn’t ientical

t “G is Jesus.” Unlike the Mak wain example, “Jesus” doesn’t ex-

haust what it means t speak “G.” Jesus an God ae not identical .

Accing t the Bible, Fathe an Spiit ae calle ivine, just as Jesus

is.6 In the statement “Jesus is G,” we use is t describe predicate ,

nt t ientiy equate: Jesus is G in that He shaes in the natuethat nly tw the pesns shae; s thee isn’t just ne pesn wh

can ppely be calle G.

Again, threeness pertains to persons, and oneness pertains to nature or

essence . Tee is nly one ivine nature , but thee persons shae in it.

F G t be G, He must pssess cetain qualities ppeties—

being all-knwing, all-pweul, an all-g. Only Fathe, Sn, an

Spiit paticipate in this ivine natue an can thus be calle “G.”

Each these three persons is als a cente cnsciusness, espnsi-

6 On the inity’s biblical unatins, see P. Cpan, “Tat’s Just Your Interpretation” (GanRapis: Bake, 2001).




bility, an activity an is distinct m the the; example, Jesus

isn’t the Fathe; the Fathe isn’t the Spiit. S thee’s simply n lgicalcntaictin when Chistians say, “Tee persons , ne divine nature .”

Fourth, the members o the rinity share the same being—not simply

the same nature . Tat is, G is ne substance (Lat. substantia ) that

exists ( subsists) n its wn; G is His wn sel-cntaine entity.

Te iune G isn’t a mee assemblage thee ivine beings (which

wul be plytheism—the belie in many gs), wh happen t have

a cmmn pupse. Tink back t the analgy the thee-heae

Cebeus. Te thee centes cnsciusness exist ae cntaine inne ganism, a sel-cntaine being. In the case G, a personal

being, we have thee pesns wh similaly exist in ne soulish being.

G is nt thee beings but ne. Just as ne hea Cebeus is nt a

being, s nne the pesns the inity is a being. Just as ne

the g’s heas cannt exist apat m cnnectin (subsistence) with

the the tw in a single ganism, likewise nne the pesns the

inity can exist in being withut the the. S this is aically ie-

ent m plytheism/titheism, in which we have istinct beings thatae capable existing n thei wn. Te necessay unity Fathe,

Sn, an Spiit is like the angles a tiangle. I we emve ne angle,

we n lnge have a tiangle; all thee must be in place.

Fith, the riune persons are deeply interrelated or mutually indwell

one another, sharing a necessary, unbreakable relational oneness. We ea-

lie nte that humans pssess a cmmn natue. Yu an I have the

same natue as Scates an Plat. Tis natue makes us what we ae,

human. When it cmes t G, we nee uthe claicatin. TughI shae the same human natue with, say, my stuents, they ae sepaate

an istinct m me; it’s pssible me t exist withut them vice

vesa. Te membes the inity, hweve, ae insepaably elate.

One can’t exist withut the the tw. As we’ve seen, a tiangle can’t

exist i we take away ne its angles since by enitin a tiangle is

ti-angula. Likewise, G by enitin is iune. Unlike Unitaians,

we can’t have just the Fathe withut Sn Spiit. Te tiune pesns

ae necessaily an pemanently inteelate.Geek thelgians use the tem perichoresis (in Latin, circuminces-

sio) t escibe the inity’s necessay inteelatinships. Jesus spke



214 PauL CoPan

being “in” the Fathe an the Fathe “in” Him t escibe thei unique

elatinship (c. Jhn 10:30,38; 17:21). Tee’s a “mutual abiing” inthe Ghea—unlike human elatinships, hweve clse they may

be. Te elatinship Fathe, Sn, an Spiit is nt sme miscel-

laneus cllectin istinct pesns wh just happen t shae sme

geneic ivine essence (“G-ness”) s that they can be classe tgeth-

e.7 Rathe, they mutually, inseparably share in the lie ne anthe

in a emakable way—a lie withut islatin, insulatin, sececy,

ea. Tey enjy a penetating, tanspaent, mutual knwlege the

the as the, as c-the, an as lve the.8 S while the ivinepesns each ully pssess the same natue (each ne can ightly be

calle “G”), me unamental is thei shaing a cmmn, mutually

inwelling unbeakable lie tgethe.

Cnsie the analgy the mutual interaction o the soul and the

body . Te Sciptues speak a deep unity between by an sul: the

by inteacts cntinually an eeply with the sul an the sul with

the by. I I eel nevus in my sul, my stmach stats chuning. I

I cut my am, my sul must make cetain ajustments in light this lss. S thee’s a kin mutual inwelling inteepenence in

this by-sul elatinship. Te sul may tempaily sepaate m

the by at eath—the believe’s absence m the by means being

at hme with the L (2 C 5:6–9). But thee’s nmally a eep,

inteactive unity between them; they act as ne.

Sixth, because the members o the rinity share the same essence and

mutually indwell one another, they also act as one and not in isolation

rom one another. All that the thee ivine pesns , they as ne. Whethe ceating, evealing, eeeming, the thee pesns the

inity necessaily act as ne. F example, when G ceates, Fathe,

Sn, an Spiit ae invlve (e.g., Gen 1:1–2; Jhn 1:3). O when

Jesus is aise m the ea, He is sai t be aise by the Fathe

(Gal 1:1; c. Acts 2:24,32) an the Spiit (Rm 1:4), but Jesus eclaes

that He has authity nt nly t lay wn His lie but als t take

it up again (Jhn 10:18; c. 2:19: “I will aise it up”). Te pesns

7 C. Plantinga, “Te Teeness/Oneness Pblem the inity,” Calvin Teological Journal 23(1988): 51; C. Plantinga, “Te Peect Family,” Christianity oday 28 (Mach 4, 1988), 27.8 C. Plantinga, “Te Peect Family,” 27.




the inity als inwell believes (Jhn 14:16,18,23; Rm 8:9). Even

thugh each pesn has a istinct cente awaeness cnsciusnessan a istinct will, nly ne hamnius will is expesse in ivine ac-

tin. Rathe than acting as thee inepenent pesns (as with Geek

an Rman gs), each membe the Ghea is equally pesent in

evey ivine actin.9

In the epth His being, G is relational . G is elating within

Himsel, an He is elatinal twa us. Tis G is or us . He has

ceate us t love Him an t cling t Him (Deut 10:20; 13:4)—like

a husban an wie must cling t each the (Gen 2:24). When Gcame t this planet, He sat at tables with the maginalize an ut-

casts sciety, shwing G’s eep inteest in them. When the Spiit

bings us int G’s amily, He pus G’s lve int u heats (Rm

5:5), giving us the cnence that we’e G’s apte chilen (Rm

8:15; Gal 4:5).

Tese thee ivine pesns ae ne in at least ve imptant ways:

(1) Tey shae the same being (cmpae the thee-heae being

Cebeus). (2) Tey shae in the same ivine natue. (3) Tey mutu-ally inwell ne anthe ( perichoresis ), being bun tgethe in ela-

tinship. (4) Tey necessaily act in peect hamny. (5) Only ne

hamnius will is expesse in thei actins. As we lk at the sty

Sciptue, we can gathe that, st, nly ne G exists an, secn,

thee pesns can legitimately be calle “G.” Te Hly inity is

inee a mystey but nt an incheent ne.

Te Philosophical and Practical Relevance of the rinity

Te ctine the inity is nt simply cheent an biblically

te. Its inceible ichness can iect us t live an think wisely nt

nly within a lving, elating Chistian cmmunity but als within

sciety as public citizens an within a plualistic glbal village as wit-

nesses t the geat things the gspel.

In the public square Westen emcacies, peple ten t

view G as a singula, unitay pesn wh is a ule-setting mn-ach enwe with shee pwe t impse His abitay stanas n

9 Hat, Te Beauty o the Infnite , 182.



216 PauL CoPan

humans.10 Obviusly, many istust an esist the iea a G wh

nly cmmans, calls beience, an juges the esistant. Te c-tine the inity, hweve, can exple this baen ethical aange-

ment. What i peple viewe G as iune, elating, sel-giving, an

the-centee by natue? What i G’s ule inclues nt cecin

bullying but a esie ienship with humans? What i G eveals

an cmmans s that humans, by His gace, may eely “chse lie”

(Deut 30:19) an expeience it “abunantly” (Jhn 10:10 NASB)?

An what i, athe than ptaying a unilateal, tp-wn aange-

ment, we can pesent a elatinal G wh wants nne t peish butall t expeience the hly wamth His cmpany (2 Pet 3:9)? Tus, i

peple cntinue t esist G’s wings (Acts 7:51), they will nt nly

amage themselves, but they have the capacity t sepaate themselves

m G’s gace, an G will eluctantly allw them t g thei wn

way eve. In the public squae Chistians shul pclaim a elating

G wh is the unatin ethics an pesnal espnsibility,

human ignity an ights, easn an tuth, an tleance an

cpeatin.Futheme, initaian ctine can give the Chistian valuable

insights in dialogue with other religions . ay’s “unknwn G” (c.

Acts 17:22–23) is “smething ut thee” that’s unknwn an unknw-

able; “It” may be the cause the univese’s existence an emak-

able aangement, but that’s abut all, we’e tl. Yet suely we can g

uthe. Althugh Easten New Age philsphies ten espuse an

abstact, impesnal view the Ultimate Reality, why think an imper-

sonal entity ce es a secue basis the personal vitues—lve,humility, kinness, cmpassin—elevate within such views? Hw

can “It” seve as a unatin human ights an pesnal ignity?

In the mnistic all-is-ne philsphies the East, thee ae n eal

I-Yu elatinships, n istinctins between the cmpassinate an

the pitie, between g an evil. All ieences ae illusy (maya ).

An why think this impesnal “G” is espnsible ceating an

sustaining the wl we expeience? It can’t ceate anything that’s

10 Sme cmments hee ae taken m L. Newbigin, “inity as Public uth,” in Te rin-ity in a Pluralistic Age: Teological Essays on Culture and Religion, e. K. J. Vanhze (GanRapis: Eemans, 1997), chap. 1.




nt G act n anything since thee’s nthing t act n.11 Even i

Easten eligins stess duties societal roles athe than rights , theiemphasis n nt haming thes but especting them still takes hu-

man wth an ignity gante, an assumptin that an impesnal

metaphysic/Ultimate Reality can’t easily accmmate.

We natually give piity t pesns ve impesnal bjects in u

eveyay lives: “Te mst imptant things in lie aen’t things,” we’e

tl. Why then av sme Easten ieal “nthingness” (sunyata )

pue cnsciusness (Bahman) that’s beyn pesnality beyn

g an evil? By cntast, the tiune G es a me uitul cn-text t gun an make sense lving human elatinships an inte-

pesnal vitues, in aitin t the existence a nite univese.

Als, eminist philosophers have bjecte t a pwe-asseting

“male,” “hieachical” cnceptin G in Westen philsphy. But

the biblical G, wh makes male and emale in His image, is a ela-

tinal, pesnal being withut gene. An althugh male pnuns

ae typically use t ee t G, Sciptue cntains metaphs

G’s mthe-like actins an emtins as tene, cae-giving, cm-passinate, an ptecting: giving bith t Isael (Deut 32:18); a nus-

ing mthe (Ps 131:2); a mthe in lab (Isa 42:4); a mthe bea

an liness (Hs 13:8). In aitin, G’s essentially the-iente

elatinality ges a lng way in aessing cetain cncens an mis-

cnceptins eminists aise egaing an autcatic, ictatial male

eity.

Finally, the inity cntibutes t a eslutin the problem o the

One and the Many —what philsphe William James calle phils-phy’s mst cental pblem. Te ancient philsphe Heaclitus sai

that ultimate eality is many an changing —that is, no unity . On the

the han, the philsphe Pamenies claime that eality is one

an unchanging —that is, no plurality . We live nt in a multiverse but

a universe , a unity that hls ivese things tgethe, an the thee-

in-ne G unishes us with esuces t accunt bth unity an

pluality.12

11 F. G. Kikpatick, A Moral Ontology or a Teistic Ethic: Gathering the Nations in Love and Justice (Bulingtn, V: Ashgate, 2003), 56.12 C. Guntn, Te One, the Tree, and the Many (Cambige: Cambige Univesity Pess,1993).

material_ class #4 - material class #4 - is the trinity a logical blunder god as three and one

Documents