Trinities

This episode is the last part of my response to Dr. Beau Branson's presentation on the monarchy of the Father (trinities podcast episodes 239-242). Here I leave aside issues of terminology, historical theologies, and historical narrative, and focus on the theological merits of Dr. Branson's account of the Triad. In short, I think it that "monarchical trinitarianism" (MT) needs further development, as it leaves pressing, central theological questions unanswered.

Along the way I get analytic, explaining how (I believe) Dr. Branson's Triad theory would deal with these four claims, only three of which (as a matter of logic) can be true. (Note: these are just four claims, not an argument with premises and a conclusion.)

The Independence Tetrad

The interesting thing about these four claims is that they can't all be true. If the Son is eternally generated and so exists because of the Father, whereas full deity requires not existing because of any other, then the Son is not divine. (1 & 2 & 3 imply the falsity of 4.) If to be generated is to be caused, and full deity requires not being caused by any other, and the Son enjoys full deity, then the Son can't have been caused by the Father. (2 & 3 & 4 imply the falsity of 1.) If they Son is fully divine, so doesn't exist because of any other, and if he was generated, then it must be false that if a being is generated, it is caused to exist by another. (1 & 3 & 4 imply the falsity of 2.) Finally, if the Son is generated and so exists because of another, and he's fully divine, then full divinity must not require not existing because of any other. (1 & 2 & 4 imply the falsity of 3.) What is a thinking Christian to do? Which should be denied? One would think, the one which we have the least reason to believe. Which is that?

I also offer Dr. Branson (really, all thinking Christians) the following argument, which starts with the Nicene claim that the Son is the same in essence/substance as the Father, and ends with a denial of monotheism. It's not an argument I assert. Rather, it seems to me that any decently developed Christian theology ought to tell us which premise or premises should be denied. (It is, rightly, a rare Christian theology indeed which would simply accept the argument as sound!)

The Argument from Nicene Theology vs. Monotheism

When it comes to the above argument, I deny 1, because of the New Testament. Which does Dr. Branson deny? Which do you deny, Mr. or Ms. Thinking Christian? Let us know in the comments below or in the Facebook group.

Thanks again to Dr. Branson; he's a friend to me and to the podcast, and I hope we will have him on again.

Links for this episode:

In this episode I review our dueling definitions of the concepts trinitarian and unitarian, explain some criteria for a successful conceptual definition, and argue that Dr. Branson's definitions don't fare well according to these.

Finally, I defend my definitions against his objections.

Dr. Branson’s definitions are:

(TB) A Trinitarian Theology says that:

(So, the persons can’t all = the One God).

(UB) A Unitarian Theology says that:

(Presumably these will just be identical, or at least “numerically one,” but again we won’t rule on that point in our definition.)

In contrast, in “Tertullian the unitarian,” I say,

A ‘trinitarian’ Christian theology says that (1) there is one God (2) which or who in some sense contains or consists of three ‘persons’, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (3) who are equally divine, and (4) (1)-(3) are eternally the case.

In contrast, a  ‘unitarian’ Christian theology asserts that the (1) there is one God, (2) who is numerically identical with the one Jesus called ‘Father’, (3) and is not numerically identical with anyone else, (4) and (1)-(3) are eternally the case.

At a couple of points I bring up trinitarians who seem to hold a Trinity theory on which all the occurrences of "is" in ye olde Trinity shield would be understood as the "is" of identity (numerical sameness, =). It's not a coherent view, of course.

I also discuss this argument, which I attribute to Dr. Branson:

1. "Monarchical trinitarianism" is the view of the Trinity held by the Cappadocian fathers.

Links for this episode:

Is the idea of a triune God, a tripersonal God, a Western mistake, something not seen in ancient or early medieval Eastern Orthodoxy? This is the view of Dr. Beau Branson, and of Dr. John Behr. Dr. Branson has argued that "monarchial trinitarianism," on which the Father (not the Trinity) is the one God, is the correct understanding of trinitarian tradition, and that this is the sort of theology seen in all pre-modern (or late medieval) Orthodox theologians.

In this episode, I argue that they are mistaken in this.

While there is no such idea, I agree, in Basil, it is pretty clearly there in the work of Gregory of Nazianzus, in the ecumenical council from the year 553, and in the work of John of Damascus.

This is what one would expect to see, if I am right that this idea of a tripersonal God, the one God as the Trinity, comes into catholic theology, both east and west, in about the last quarter of the fourth century, as a development of what historians call "Pro-Nicene" theology, i.e. catholic theology done by partisans of the Nicene creed of 325 (as understood in the latter fourth century).

Links for this episode:

In this first part of my response to Dr. Beau Branson's "The Neglected Monarchy of the Father and the Analytic Debate about the Trinity," I dispute his claim that his in "the" Orthodox view of the Trinity. I discuss several recent authorities on Eastern Orthodox theology who clearly hold that the one God is the Trinity (and so, not the Father alone).

I also relate some anecdotes about my interactions with Orthodox people and Orthodoxy on the Trinity, and I discuss the Orthodox (and generally, catholic) penchant for appeals to "mystery."

I then explain why in my view the 381 creed assumes that there is a triune God, whereas the 325 creed does not.

I also suggest that Dr. Branson and I have more in common than he realizes, despite our differences.

Links for this episode:

In this fourth and final part of his presentation on the Monarchy of the Father, Dr. Branson again presses what he claims are unresolvable problems for my definitions of the terms "trinitarian" and "unitarian."

He also argues that I've painted myself into a corner by (in some sense) endorsing the views of Samuel Clarke, which Dr. Branson argues are substantially Eastern Orthodox views, or what Dr. Branson calls "monarchical trinitarianism."

Finally, he ventures an argument against biblical unitarian theology. He argues that it either collapses into monarchical trinitarianism, or it can't avoid the "wonky metaphysics" relied on by various "egalitarian" (Western, Catholic) understandings of the Trinity.

Next week, I start to reply to his many objections.

Links for this episode:

In this third part, Dr. Branson starts by discussing what was perceived as Arius's patrological failing: implicitly denying that fatherhood is essential to God. Dr. Branson then makes this argument:

Dr. Branson points out that this will probably drive the unitarian to deny 4, the least plausible of the premises.

He then disputes my claim that the key moment in (what I call) the unitarian to trinitarian change in catholic Christianity was the council in 381. He discusses passages in this connection from Gregory of Nazianzen, John of Damascus, and Theodore Abu Qurrah. He argues that I'm an unwitting ally of Roman Catholic theology in that I misread "the fathers" as what Dr. Branson calls "egalitarian  trinitarians."

He ends by arguing that his "monarchical trinitarianism" may be compatible with some "social" or  constutition theory of the Trinity, and he urges that on my definitions, contrary to my intentions, a theory may count as both trinitarian and unitarian. In contrast, on his preferred definitions, trinitarian and unitarian are mutually exclusive.

Links for this episode:

In this second portion of his presentation, Dr. Branson discusses how different views on the Trinity relate to Orthodox-Roman Catholic relations, including the famous filioque ("and the Son") dispute and the Great Schism.

He also claims that this is the first appearance of a tripersonal God in official, conciliar Roman Catholic creeds:

...we declare our belief in one God, in three persons consubstantial, divine and autonomous, as, for example, we may look at the one nature of light in three suns not unlike each other or in the same number of dazzling objects. We confess, indeed, God to be one, unique in respect of substance, but threefold or three if we are speaking of him in respect of persons, and we declare he has not received from himself that he has been made, nor in any way whatsoever from anyone else; but that he is alone, ever existing without beginning, and eternal, even the same and like to himself, and suffering no change or alteration; that he exists as the maker and source of all beings endowed with intelligence and feeling. (,"Definition of the holy and universal eighth synod," [869-70] in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Ed. Norman Tanner Vol. I, pp. 160-61)

Quoting a few leading present-day patristics scholars, he argues that worries about "subordinationism" are misplaced, as any patristic Trinity doctrine will feature some sort of subordinationism. Finally, he shares two passages from Gregory of Nyssa which he says show some subordination of Son to Father, which is just a corollary of the unique monarchy of the Father, i.e. his being the one God.

Links for this episode:

According to Orthodox analytic theologian Dr. Beau Branson the right way to understand the Trinity is that the one true God is none other than the Father, although there are three divine persons. There is no triune God, no tripersonal God. In his view, this is the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In this first portion of his presentation "One God, the Father: The Neglected Monarchy of Father and the Analytic Debate about the Trinity" he disputes my definitions of what "trinitarian" and "unitarian" theologies are. Dr. Branson's definitions are:

(TB) A Trinitarian Theology says that:

(So, the persons can’t all = the One God).

(UB) A Unitarian Theology says that:

(Presumably these will just be identical, or at least “numerically one,” but again we won’t rule on that point in our definition.)

In contrast, in "Tertullian the unitarian," I say,

A ‘trinitarian’ Christian theology says that (1) there is one God (2) which or who in some sense contains or consists of three ‘persons’, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (3) who are equally divine, and (4) (1)-(3) are eternally the case.

In contrast, a  ‘unitarian’ Christian theology asserts that the (1) there is one God, (2) who is numerically identical with the one Jesus called ‘Father’, (3) and is not numerically identical with anyone else, (4) and (1)-(3) are eternally the case.

Dr. Branson also explains what he calls the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father, which in his view, is a key to correctly understanding the Trinity. He also explain what he calls "egalitarian" or "symmetrical" views on the Trinity, which he contrasts with "monarchical" views.

He has some interesting criticisms of my work on Trinity theories, and in his view, my work is not properly grounded in the historical sources, especially neglecting the Cappadocian Fathers and later Orthodox writers.

Do you accept his definitions or mine or neither, and why?

Links for this episode:

In July I was honored to receive a long and detailed letter from a Catholic listener - one who was raised in a biblical unitarian denomination - Mr. Kirk Ross, an estate planning attorney and  author. He confronts me on a number of issues and lodges several complaints.

He writes, in part,

You make a very big deal out of the fact that different philosophers interpret traditional Trinitarian creedal language differently, i.e. there are multiple "Trinity theories." ...I think you are trying to imply that they must all, therefore, be wrong.

And later,

Rhetorically, you refer to Biblical Unitarianism as if it were some sort of monolithic theological view (as opposed to the fractured views of the Trinity). That is quite wrong... Your type of Unitarianism (even if it was present in the first century, which I do not necessarily grant) is awfully hard to find among the church Fathers (if it is there at all).

And,

Quite bluntly, the doctrine of sola scriptura is logically inconsistent and cannot be right.

In this episode, I read his entire letter and respond section by section. I acknowledge some good points, correct some mistaken impressions, and in some cases argue back.

Links for this episode:

In this second part of our conversation (part 1 here) Dr. Levine and Dr. Witherington and I discuss the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee, what's distinctive about Luke's gospel, the role of women in this book, the parable of the prodigal son, how Jesus differs from the rabbis, how the authors' different backgrounds condition their reading of Luke, whether or not Luke thinks that Joseph is the biological Father of Jesus, the view that Luke was a Gentile, and whether or not this gospel asserts or assumes the deity of Christ.

Thanks to Dr. Witherington and to Dr. Levine for some great conversation, and for their long and fruitful work on this project!

Links for this episode: