Saith Sudduth,

Krishna is the all-attractive Absolute who is manifested in the different religious traditions of the world. There is merging into impersonal Brahman. There are also distinctly theistic experiences in which the self encounters a personal God.

The ultimate being is either personal or not. Thus, it can’t be that both the aforementioned experiences are veridical, i.e. represent God as God really is.

I think Sudduth agrees; he goes on to explain that “merging” experiences are something like the devotee coming in contract with what some would call the “energies” of God. Of course, Indian philosophers like Sankara would disagree. And I don’t know why we should accept Sudduth’s claim that:

…that transcendental consciousness (the aim of nearly all religious traditions) is in fact variegated in nature.

I don’t know that there is any one general sort of experience which nearly all traditions aim at. Experiences of a loving god are not at all like the sorts of experiences monistic types profess, wherein, they say, there is no subject-object duality, but one just is non-cognitively aware of  the ineffable One.

 It is most fitting that God would seek to experience the love of the devotee in much the same way that he would seek to experience the suffering of the devotee (in the person of Jesus). In Christ God suffers with us. In Chaitanya, God loves with us. In each case, there is an important identification between God and us. God tastes the suffering that distances us from Him and the love that brings us near to Him.

I’d like to hear more about this “identification“. When theologians who’ve read Moltmann start talking like this, I think that more often than not, they’re sorely confused about the various ideas of sameness/identity. I’m assuming that Sudduth, being a philosopher, is not. So, in what sense is God “the same as” (“identified” with) the devotee?

Perhaps the answer is in this part of his letter:

 …the GV tradition specifically views the relationship between God and the self as an inconceivable and simultaneous difference and non-difference (achintya bheda abheda tattva). This strikes a wonderful balance between the monism of Advaita Vedanta and the strong dualism of the Dvaita schools originating from Madhva (and also reflected in most streams of the Christian tradition). As I see it, the ways of unqualified oneness and unqualified separateness (between self and God) each tends ultimately to dissolve the love relationship between the self and God. Love requires a merging of two beings into one, yet without a loss of their individuality. This is inconceivable, but its truth is the precondition for the possibility of real love between the self and God. Consequently, I now accept a panentheistic metaphysics in which the universe and human souls are, to put it roughly, in the being of God.

If I understand him, he’s a negative mysterian about the relationship between God and devotee. It might at first appear contradictory (they’re numerically one, and they are not) but in fact the relation is something which can’t be grasped by us.

Honestly, I don’t see how this can be a “wonderful balance.” The mind has nowhere to rest; as with all negative mysterianism, a commitment has been made to simply think inconsistently, but insist that really, this is sort of just pointing at an inconceivable fact, an ungraspable one. This sort of move insulates one’s claim from refutation, but it also leaves unclear why anyone else should agree with it. (What claim?)

Moving on, Sudduth holds that

…GV has the intellectual resources for a reasonable inclusivist understanding of religion.

This needs some unpacking for non-philosophers. In philosophy of religion, “inclusivism” is the claim that the goal of religion (whatever one thinks that is) can be gotten by people outside the one true, or the one most true religion. (“Can be” – the general position is neutral about how often this happens.) The Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner famously stumps for this, and no small number of analytic Christian philosophers think this must be right.

I would be interested in why Sudduth thinks GV is particularly well off here. Is it better off on this score than Christianity? If so, why? And what sorts of religions might one gain the goal of religion through? And, what is the goal of religion? I would assume it is theistic – like, escaping the cycle of reincarnations and living in the presence of Krishna and his other devotees.

But then, Sudduth says,

…God-realization (or salvation) takes on diverse forms

But what sort of goal is this “God realization”? Is he saying that it takes monotheistic forms (like I just described) and also unitive, absolutist, “merging” forms (the ole drop of water going back into the ocean). What is the genus of which these two ends are the species, I wonder? It seem to me that there must be one, else the “cure” envisioned by his theology is weirdly ad hoc and disjunctive.

Moreover, what separates the sort of inclusivism he wants to endorse from being a type of religious pluralism (the view that the goal of religion can be acheived through all, or all major religions)? I assume there is a difference, which is why he says “inclusivism” and not “pluralism”. But what could it be? Might not Krishna also graciously offer pretty much any goal aimed at by any religious tradition? If not, why not?

Obviously I am not a fellow-traveler with him, but I wish him the best, and will be interested to see his thoughts as he says more about all of this.

Dr. Win Corduan responds to this site (which probably appears to many as a credible source).

I’ve enjoyed a couple of Dr. Corduan’s books, in particular this one.

Update: part 2, part 3.

Seems that he’s finished a new edition of the book I mention above – cool!

Pictured here are Krishna and his lover Radha. I take it that in Sudduth’s form of Hinduism Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. Other Hindus consider Krishna to be the high god himself.

There is much art celebrating the love of these two.

The story for me was a bit spoiled when I watched a documentary in which a Hindu, Indian man explained that (at least on some versions) Radha is married to another, and is Krishna’s aunt. Perhaps some would object that I’m not looking at it metaphysically enough.

In another famous episode, Krishna charms a bunch of cow-herding ladies.

I’m curious to read more about Sudduth’s conversion. How does one get from Calvin’s all-determining triune deity to Vishnu? I wonder if it is by way of fairly mainstream trinitarian modalism…

Myself, as I read Sudduth’s interesting narrative of his conversion I’m not sure where, i.e. with what sort of Christianity, he was starting from. I too have taught the Gita in an academic setting, but I have not had experiences like this:

Around 4:20am (Friday morning) September 16th, I woke suddenly from a deep sleep to the sound of the name of “Krishna” being uttered in some way, as if someone was present in my room and had spoken his name out loud. Upon waking I immediately had a most profound sense of Krishna’s actual presence in my bedroom, a presence no less real than the presence of another living person in the room, though I was alone at the time. I responded to this felt presence, first through my thoughts that repeated Krishna’s name (and inquired of his presence), and then verbally out loud by uttering Krishna’s name twice: Krishna, Krishna. I was seized at this moment with a most sweet feeling of completeness and joy. I felt as if Krishna was there with me in my room and actually heard my voice, and that my response had completed a process that began with his name within my mind. I pondered this experience for several minutes, while at the same time continuing to experience a most blissful serenity and feeling of oneness with God, not unlike I had experienced on many occasions in the past in my relationship with the Lord Jesus. It was a most profound sense of both awe and intimacy with God in the form of Lord Krishna.

I should add, and I think this is very important, that I felt I was experiencing the same God that I had experienced on many occasions throughout my Christian life. However, I felt like this being was showing me a different face, side, or aspect to Himself, or – better yet – a different mode of my relationship to Him. I felt a certain validation of my spiritual journey, both past and present. I had gone so far in my Christian faith, but it was now necessary for me to relate to God as Lord Krishna.

If I understand him, he’s saying that he conceived of Jesus as a mode of God – not uncommon among catholic Christians – and now he views Krishna as another mode of God, another way God is and appears. Well, presumably God can be and appear in uncountably many ways. As for me, since I hold that Jesus is a different self than God, I must reject that he’s a mode of God himself; Jesus isn’t a mode at all, but rather a self/person. But back to Sudduth:

After my journey to [the California ashram] Audarya… I can only describe my experience as one of being irresistibly drawn to Sri Krishna, overwhelmed with His power and beauty, convinced of his Godhead – in short overflowing with love for Him as the Supreme Personality of the Godhead, and through him love for all beings, as He resides in the hearts of all beings.

One thing I’m curious about is: does his present faith involve, as most forms of Hinduism do, worship of images? If so, how or why did he change his mind about that? I assume that as a Protestant he viewed idolatry as being forbidden by God.

Sudduth’s account is mostly positive, about his experiences and the charms of his newfound theology. But I guess his conversion must have a negative side as well. I take it he rejects the idea of Jesus as being the best, most complete revelation of the character of the one God, and as being a needed mediator between God and humankind. But if I understand him, Sudduth still believes in one God, albeit one who is related to the cosmos somewhat as a human soul is related to its body. This entails rejecting the idea of God as creator, at least in an ex nihilo sense.

Also, I’m guessing there is a sort of acceptance of mythical lore - something traditional Christianity has always eschewed. However, I do know that a good number of Hindus hold Krishna to be a historical person, as well as an avatar of Vishnu.

Update: more thoughts and a link from the Maverick Philosopher. 

I read most of MacDonald’s Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’. I found it helpful, but had some fundamental disagreements with it. Those another time.

The two have very different views of the OT & the issue of monotheism. To oversimplfy, MacDonald thinks that for a long time, Jews were polytheistic, then they became monotheists of a sort and changed older polytheistic OT texts to fit their new views. In contrast, Heiser thinks that all along they believed YHWH to be unique, although many could be called “elohim.” This is a very interesting disagreement, but  I won’t join the fray here.

Just a couple of comments.

Yes, monotheism is the belief that there there exists exactly one god. This sounds silly to say, but this has been denied repeatedly as of late.

Contra MacDonald’s first answer in the interview, the only real unclarity in this is what counts as a god, i.e. the concept of godhood.

The important issue here is the idea of monotheism, not the word “monotheism.” Yes, it is a fairly recent term, but I would argue, a helpful one – at least, once we make clear what is meant by the term “god.”

Heiser says, 

I don’t care for the modern definition as someone who accepts the Judeo-Christian canon.

Eh… how would accepting the authority of the Bible tell you that “monotheism” is or is not a helpful term? What matters, I think, would be theoretical considerations like classification and explanation. The question is: can the term earn its keep?

Heiser again,

The biblical writers used the term elohim to refer to half a dozen figures or entities in the unseen spiritual world (Yahweh, the elohim of Yahweh’s council, “demons” [Deut 32:17], the disembodied human dead [1 Sam 28:13], and angels [at least I’d argue for that on the basis of the plural verb in Gen 35:7 and its referent point]). The fact that they do that should tell us loudly and clearly that that they did not associate the term elohim with a specific set of attributes.

Oh, to the contrary – attributes implied would be: selfhood, being normally invisible, being powerful, being interested in what various humans are doing. What he means to say, is that “god” for the ancient Hebrews was not a kind-term, not assumed to refer to whatever has some metaphysical essence. That is correct, and I think the point applies far beyond ancient Hebrews and the term elohim.

We do that reflexively as moderns—we use “g-o-d” thinking of the singular being we know as the God of the Bible.

No, this is a different point than the previous, but again, he’s right. The point could be put thusly: we use “God” as a name or title for the God of Abraham (etc.).

Elohim is what I like to call a “place of residence” term. It doesn’t tell me what a thing is in terms of attributes; it tells me the proper domain of a thing. All elohim are members of the unseen spiritual world, their place of residence.

I don’t think that’s part of the meaning of “god,” but rather an image or assumption that may accompany it… But again, by his own words, it does imply that the bearer has certain attributes – what he means to say is that it doesn’t attribute any essence to the bearer, or assume that any being to whom the term applies has an certain essence (roughly, defining features).

He does believe monotheism, and that monotheism is assumed in all parts of the Bible. It’s just that they would deny that there was only one elohim, even while holding that one of those elohim was unique.

For those who enjoyed my previous posts (here and here) on avatars in Hinduism, here’s something I’ve done recently for a class I’m teaching – excerpts of the long (78 part!) ultra-hit Indian tv series Ramayan into movie form. (Here’s the whole series.) Yes, I watched the whole thing, over a couple of months, so you don’t have to. Grab some popcorn and check it out. My notes in the comment below will help you to bridge the plot-gaps.

This doesn’t directly have to do with Christian theology. My interest here was to illustrate the Hindu tradition for my students, specifically a popular, present-day, devotional Vaishnavite form.

Still, one can fruitfully apply philosophical analysis and comparison with Christian theology here:

• What’s presented here, despite appearances, is supposed to ultimately be monotheism. The one god is Vishnu, and the other gods and goddesses are just manifestations of him, him acting in different forms. This is clear when at one point the three functions of creation, preservation, and destruction are assigned to Vishnu. It’s modalism on a massive scale.
• The series asserts the primacy of Vishnu, even while bending over backwards to exalt Shiva as a great god and proper object of worship (and also the Great Goddess). He’s a perfect self, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, a se.
• Ram (aka Rama, pictured here – but in the movie, he’s not blue) is Vishnu’s manifestation as a human being, Vishnu incarnate, or in their terms, a descent (avatar) of Vishnu. The screenplay reflects the tensions in the various versions of the Ramayan – Does Ram know that he’s Vishnu? Is he merely feigning ignorance? Why does he keep saying he’s just a man? Is he in the end a real human being, or does he only appear to be one? Or does this not matter, since at bottom in some sense everything is Vishnu/Brahman?
• The screenplay repeatedly says that Vishnu and his descent as a man, are unfathomable, mysterious, beyond logic, etc.
• At the end, the movie presents Ram as the one god, the one ultimate being, of which the rest of the Hindu pantheon is a manifestation. (I’m talking about the worship song scene were Ram appears in the middle of a bunch of faces and bodies lined up all together.) But that’s because Ram is supposed to be numerically identical to Vishnu – they are one and the same.
• There are even parts of the series, not included here, in which Vishnu and Shiva seem to enjoy what some Christians call “perichoresis” or perfect fellowship; they worship each other, and dwell in the hearts of one another.
• The third member of the Trimurti (aka the “Hindu Trinity”) Brahma gets short shrift, like the Holy Spirit. While Brahma appears in a number of scenes (floating on a big pink lotus flower), he isn’t really worshiped, at least, not like Vishnu and Shiva are. At any rate, he’s presented as a manifestation of or attribute of Ram/Vishnu. This reflects the practice of Hinduism – my understanding is that Brahma as such (as opposed to as a member of the Trimurti) is not really a focus of devotion there.
• Ram is very much meant as a model of human behavior, an ideal human being, the way that Christians view Jesus. In many or most cases, Christians would agree with Hindus that his behavior in the Ramayana is indeed virtuous, though there would be some disagreements in the areas of filial piety, honor, and idolatry.
• As with Calvinism, here one is saved by grace, through faith. Note the ultimate fate of the villian Ravan here.

No, this doesn’t include anything from the 39-part 1989 follow-up series. I believe this features Ram un-descending back into Vishnu, but I haven’t gotten around to watching that one yet.

And they add: the Word is God, and the Word became flesh.

Sounds like a change, doesn’t it? First, the Word is simply divine, and a moment later, he’s entered into a “hypostatic union” with a “complete human nature.”

Reformed philosophical theologian James Anderson takes a crack at this one. (HT: Triablogue.) I much like his set-up. I’m less keen on the solution. Short answer: it’s a mystery (apparent contradiction). You’ll have to read his post to see why I chose this pic.

A few quick comments: first, I’m with Craig. I don’t think his position implies any change in God. Rather: if God hadn’t created, he’d be timeless. But given that God has created, he’s “in time.” It seems to me that if there is time, there’s no where else to be. Our spatial metaphors (“outside” time, “above” time) are wrongheaded. So are the trapping metaphors (e.g. “bound by” time). If God freely chose to create, then he freely chose to operated “in time” and he’s not been “trapped” by anything other than logical consistency. Anderson wants there to be paradox (apparent contradiction) in Craig’s view, but I don’t see it.

Like many Christian philosophers, I agree with this crucial point by Anderson:

…the biblical statements about God not changing needn’t be taken in a way that rules out change in any sense. The focus in these texts is on God’s character and his faithfulness to his promises.

That’s right. So the “fathers” never had any good scriptural grounds for their belief in divine timelessness. It was all based on philosophical reasons, and I would say bad ones at that. But that’s another post.

The line that God only appears to change, but doesn’t really change, implies that he cannot ever genuinely respond to human beings. He does not open himself to be influenced either way by us. And arguably, that makes a real friendship with God impossible. But that such is possible, is at the very heart and soul of the whole Bible.

On to qua-stuff:

…we should say that Jesus was omniscient with respect to his divine natureand gained wisdom with respect to his human nature. On this basis, it seems natural to say that God the Son is timeless and unchangeable with respect to his divine nature but temporal and changeable with respect to his human nature.

The problem with this is that it seems that what you know-in-a-nature, you know. And what you don’t-know-in-a-nature, you don’t know. So this seems no improvement on just saying that Jesus knows and doesn’t know something, or that he knows all, and doesn’t know some. Oddly enough, I think James would agree.

Again, if some self has an essential nature which requires X, then he himself must be X. So with the two-natured Jesus, if the divine nature requires the impossibility of change, then Jesus can’t change. And if his human nature requires the possibility of change, then Jesus can change. So he can and he can’t.

But, he did. So, he can. Ergo, he was not divine and/or divinity doesn’t require the impossibility of change. Ergo, “classic” incarnation theory appears to be inconsistent with itself.

Again, I think James would agree! But maybe he’ll set me straight.

It depends on what it takes to be a real god…

Hindus who believe in avatars, and catholic Christians say: yes, this is possible, for it has been actual.

In Hinduism, this is particularly emphasized in Vaishnavite traditions, in Christianity, Roman Catholicism.

They of course differ about which god this was.

For other Christians, the answer is no.

In a previous post, I commented that there is something pleasing about the idea that a mighty god stooped to become a small, weak baby.

This time: story of Vishnu incarnate has been updated.

My edit, with comments, after the break.

(On the youtube page, the times below are clickable – click “Show more” there.)

• 0:01 To everything, there is a season…
• 0:31 This looks like a job for… Vishnu!
• 0:42 King Dashrath was almost killed in battle. Now, he’s concerned that his line should continue. He and his three queens consult with his the royal guru.
• 1:18 It’s nothing a little Vedic ceremony won’t fix.
• 1:47 But not just anyone can perform that rite…
• 2:33 A theophany of Vishnu as an electric ball of light.
• 4:41 Rite time, rite place.
• 5:00 That was quick! Better stock up on diapers.
• 5:52 Shiva, Brahma, and misc. divinities, gurus etc. acknowledge that something important is about to go down.
• 6:41 An out-of-body experience. Meet your future baby, Queen Kaushalya (Lord Vishnu). He reminds me of a young Paul Stanley.
• 7:52 She gets her wish: a son like Vishnu. But only Vishnu himself is qualified.
• 8:39 “Om” a holy syllable, expressing God’s essence – “namo” hail – “Narayana” an old divine title, applied to Vishnu.
• 8:45 Heavenly and earthly beings celebrate the birth of Ram (Rama) and his brothers. Ram = Vishnu.
• 10:40 The wrath of God.
• 11:00 A paradoxical musical number. God gets a bath, is dressed by Mommy, takes a nap, gets fed, and so on.
• 12:16 God is very cute.
• 13:03 God toddles.
• 14:16 Moms love that, even the mother of God.

Another answer: here.  (HT: kingdomready.)

Evidently, Fred Sanders isn’t the only theological cartoonist out there. But I do prefer his cuddly lecturing bear Dr. Doctrine.

Commenters: please link your best God, Trinity, or Jesus related cartoons. Only requirements: that they be at least mildy amusing, and not too offensive.

Re: “Herman & Nudix“. True story: in Christian college c. 1990, some yahoo buddies and I ran an imaginary person for Student Association President. Made up a hilarious trifold campaign handout, and other silly promotional materials. He got 4% of the vote. His name: Herman Ootics (full name: Herman J. Ootics III). Yeah, some theology nerds got a kick out of that name. I should post the awesome pic we used some time.

But I didn’t get into the complexities of this story. It’s a fascinating one, if you at all enjoy textual detective puzzles.

I found some excellent recent posts by Sean Finnegan, posted at kingdomready.org. The subtitle of the post is a red herring, but the article is well done and informative. Check them out:

• Part 1 deals with the Latin textual tradition.
• Part 2 discusses the Greek evidence, and the odd case of Erasmus.

I think he overreaches a bit at the end; yes, many catholics c. 1500-1900 wanted these verses kept in – they were just too convenient, and it was an embarrassment that they’d so long been in the received version, only to be taken out in these latter days (unless you’re Greek Orthodox!).

But it’s unclear why they were composed in the first place. I mean, how exactly would this combat the “Arians’s” theology? Why wouldn’t they want to say that the heavenly Three are “one”? It doesn’t say one god; they could be one in testimony.

And if we’re now right about the original text, how could one read that as a statement about the Trinity (just ’cause there’s three?) so as to compose a marginal note about the three in heaven? By what mental leap could one go from the eathly trio to a heavenly one? Maybe I underestimate the patristic-era imagination, though… it has surprised me many times.

So I don’t see any big polemical point here for unitarianism. I say, bravo to the intellectually honest trinitarian scholars who smoked out this rat, despite the inconvenience. Even Erasmus, though he caved.

It is true that unitarians of various sorts were out in front on this one. (e.g. Clarke nukes it on p. 121.)

(click for image credit)

Last Christmas season I posted in a slightly Grinch-like way about catholic Incarnation theories, and about some Christians’ lack of critical thinking about them.

There’s an interesting human impulse observable here. The best analogy I can think of right now is posters like the one to the left. The ladies love them.

Why? There’s the sex appeal of the dude. And the cute baby. Everyone likes a cute baby.

But there’s something else, something affecting about a big, strong, tough manly man, stooping to gently cradle a teeny, vulnerable baby. He’s made himself so vulnerable. Of course, that adds to the “sexy” part. My point is, the affecting nature of the man’s condescension is a distinct element of the appeal.

Now imagine that God, big strong God, becomes an ignorant, weak, dependent little baby. There’s a similar, recognisable emotional tug there. What an amazing idea! Of course, it may be amazing in part because it’s contradictory. But I’ll not argue that here.

Instead, a bit of cross-cultural comparison. Christians aren’t the only ones who go in for the idea of a god who comes down from his mighty position, to be a cute, puny little baby.

The Ramayana is an epic poem, and a sort of scripture in Hinduism. Parts of it go back perhaps to the 400s BCE, though it comes in many versions, some of which are from the high middle ages. The clip below is from a wildly popular Indian television series from 1986 called Ramayan. If you’re interested in Hinduism, I recommend it, but it’s a real time commitment to watch the whole thing. I’ve edited some bits of  it, to include the more theological parts, and to get it down to youtube length. It’s here, Ram or Rama, is supposed to be an avatar of the god Vishnu.

My point is not that Christians copied the idea of incarnation from Hindu avatar theories. I don’t think that is true, nor can I rule out some amount of Christian influence is some latter day avatar theorizing. My main point is the common human reaction to the image of a baby god. Also like Christians, the characters wonder whether or not this is contradictory. See how they dismiss the worry, or rather, how a major Hindu god does.

For the record, I do not claim, but I do deny that the Trimurti has anything to do with Christian Trinity theories. I’m aware of no evidence of causal influence either way. Perhaps in a future post I’ll explore what these facts about Hinduism may have to do with Christian theology.

Below is a play-by-play commentary, so you know who is who, and what is going on.  Enjoy!

• The scene starts in Vishnu’s heaven; he’s the blue guy relaxing on the couch. He’s called the Preserver, and is a god of grace and compassion.
• :16 – On behalf of many, Brahma the Creator god beseeches Vishnu to come to earth, which is oppressed by the demon King Ravan. Others join in.
• 1:37 – that’s Ravan, rocking that mustache and literally treading the earth under foot. He has a good bad guy laugh.
• 2:08 – Shiva (“the Destroyer” – though he’s not a bad or purely negative deity) appears, in leopard skin, to urge Vishnu to descend and take birth as a human avatar. (Aside: he’s the third of the so-called “Hindu Trinity” (Triumurti) along with Vishnu and Brahma.) Vishnu greets him as “God of gods;” I’m not sure if that’s flattery, or if the source here assumes him to be the one high god. One might assume that Vishnu, not Shiva would be in that position in the Ramayana… In some Vishnu-centered texts, Shiva is actually a manifestation of Vishnu, but that’s not going on here.
• 2:24 – The “Trinity” (it’s not really a Trinity, but that’s another post) is now on the left of the screen, together with Vishnu’s wife, the popular goddess Lakshmi.
• 3:03 – A very hairy guru takes up the argument. Shiva says he’s the guru of the gods.
• 3:57 – That circular saw blade on Vishnu’s finger is a “divine weapon.” His other hand holds a conch shell to blow like a horn. Why is he blue? It’s the color of the sky, is the common explanation.
• 4:24 – Vishnu, sympathising with oppressed humanity, decides to be born as a man to conquer Ravan, restoring balance to the earth. He’ll be born as a prince to King Dasarath.
• 4:52 – Here he is in human form, the baby Ram (Rama). It seems that Lord Vishnu / Ram needs a diaper! He cutes it up, to the delight of the king, his queens, and Shiva, viewing from his holy mountain. The god, possibly the high God, is a cute toddler. Is this patently contradictory nonsense, or a wonderful, almost unthinkable truth?
• 9:00 – Shiva and his wife or consort Parvati delve into this question. They observe little Ram having a temper tantrum, and she wonders how a/the god could do this. It is “The deepest of mysteries, my Lady.” Yes, Shiva here is a mysterian! He adds that God must become a man to show man the true path, by example. The view here seems to be that Vishnu has really become a human being, with all the limitations thereof, and not that he merely appears to be a human. In other words, this is not a docetist avatar theory being presupposed. There is only the briefest flash of worry here about whether this story is self-consistent or self-contradictory.
• 10:52 – WWRD – “What Would Ram Do?” Ram is presented throughout the Ramayana as an ideal human, a paragon of virtue.
• 11:19 – Shiva decides he wants in on this salvific action; he’ll descend as an avatar too (for the 11th time), as Hanuman, to help Ram in his quest to defeat Ravan.

In his excellent entry “Relative Identity“ veteran logican and philosopher of language Harry Deutsch says about the best that can be said for relative identity theories – that maybe, arguably, they solve or help to solve various metaphysical problems. See his sections 2 and 4 for these. His section 5 is a penetrating analysis of Geach’s very hard to follow arguments.

Deutsch’s point of view is very different from that held by most philosophers. For this, see chapter 1 of Colin McGinn’s Logical Properties. (NDPR review.) This is more or less  the “orthodox” view that most philosophers hold, atheist or theist, trinitarian or not. I largely agree with it, except for its Platonic aspect. I uphold the logic of identity as McGinn understands it, but do not want to commit to the existence of abstracta like relations. I think the truthmaker of a sentence like “Dubya just is George Bush” is going to be a concrete object, the ex-president himself. In this, I’m in the minority; most philosophers find abstracta indispensible.

Another place one can start is Harold Noonan‘s excellent “Identity” entry. He’s an excellent philosopher, and the piece has many virtues; in particular, see his section 2 on Leibniz’s Law vs. substitutivity principles.

The best thing I’ve ever read on identity and relative identity is John Hawthorne’s chapter “Identity” in The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. A version is available to scribd users here.

• This piece is very rich, and defies easy summary.
• A basic point is that “identity” in a basic, unanalyzable concept, and so we ought not worry about circular definition. Geach’s failure to recognize this is a core problem with his whole project. (p. 122)
• Hawthorne’s section 3.1 brings out the many problems facing Geach’s project. His conclusion: “In sum: it is no mere artefact of philosophical fashion that Geach’s relative identity approach has few adherents.” (p. 123) You’ll have to read the piece to see why.
• Another basic, crucial point, I would paraphrase as follows. (p. 100) We all understand “something is cold and fizzy”. The shows that we have a concept of identity; if that sentence is true, the cold thing just is the fizzy thing. Contrast with the sentence: “something is cold, and something is fizzy.” That we have this concept of identity, of course, doesn’t imply that we understand identity-logic, or have any theoretical opinions on the subject at all.
• Hawthorne’s main point is that “Puzzles that are articulated using the word ‘identity’ are not puzzles about the identity relation itself.” (p. 99) When I think about the many metaphysical treatments I’ve read recently of the puzzles Deutsch discusses, I think this is an emerging consensus. There are always other moves to be made, and all sorts of weird metaphysical doctrines to be brought into play. But the emerging consensus is that identity is to be held constant; the concept of identity is common coin in these disputes, just as is, say, the assumptions that modus ponens is valid, or that no contradiction is true.
• By the examples he gives, it is plain that Hawthorne is well aware that evaluating Trinity and Incarnation theories necessitate careful thinking about identity, but he doesn’t ever entry the fray. (But he almost does – see p. 120 fn. 38.)

Be forewarned; there are pervasive confusions about numerical sameness among Christian theologians nowadays, in particular about personal identity (the relation being the same self as). This is largely due, I think, to uncritical reliance on poorly done philosophy. This is not due to any intrinsic difference between the fields or any commitment intrinsic to Christianity, as there are and have been theologians who are thoroughly clear-headed about identity. The solution is to digest well done philosophy, so as to be able to make clear distinctions and to reason surefootedly; that’s the reason for this post. Don’t give in to the temptation to foolishly heap scorn on “absolute” identity or on Leibniz’s Law, as if they were mere speculations, and things to which you yourself are not committed.

Another sort of review, quoting the above, with some comments.

Latest entry here, with my comment. Can’t keep up with all the posts.

A “tale”? Man, I was hoping for a better story.

Am I foolish for responding? Quite possibly. I hope not. I care passionately about these issues and have infinite patience for discussing them (though not infinite time); the danger is getting sucked in to one of these.

Update: yes, foolish. I really have to listen more to cynical-Dale. This would’ve helped too.

In sum, the one God is a perfect being, a perfect self, who is the Trinity. He has within himself three parts – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these parts fully has the (universal) divine nature, and so, each of the essential divine attributes. Each is a divine self. And these three parts are indistinguishable from one another, or nearly so, though they be numerically distinct.

Steve has now responded twice, here and here. These contain a lot of extraneous material, which I’ll pass by. My question is, what did I get wrong above? Here’s what I hear (bulleted):

• No, the Persons are not exactly alike. Each has a property the other two lack.
• “they share a “numerically identical” nature”

Right – “nearly so.”

Because he says this nature is shared, I’m going to infer that it is a universal – something capable of being had by multiple subjects.

• He wonders why I’m hearing things in terms of part and whole.

Steve, it’s not because you think God has multiple attributes. (Yes, I too reject the classical doctrine of simplicity, though I don’t think God has parts.) Rather, I’m trying to figure out what the relation is, in your view, between God/The Trinity and those three Persons. If it isn’t whole-parts, help me out!

• The Persons are so alike that any one “represents” either of the others.
• I don’t know what Tuggy means by “self.”

Sure you do - this is a rough, vague concept we all have. It is a thing which is conscious (yes, of self as well as other things), which can act for a reason (can choose, has a will), which is intelligent (has knowledge), and which can engage in friendship. If you speak to something, and think it may understand, even speak back, you think it is a self. Thus, I submit that you think God is a self, as I assume you speak to him. You sort of say that any divine person will be only analogous to a human self. Well, sure. But we have a more abstract concept of a self (which doesn’t imply being a human, or even being created, or having a body) which we should both agree is satisfied by, e.g. the Father.

I think I basically got his view right: there are four divine selves: God (The Trinity), the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. This is confirmed by what he says after noting that in his view, each  Person of the Trinity has a first-person point of view:

Finally, wouldn’t their individual viewpoints include a corporate viewpoint? If God is a Trinity, then I’d expect the Son (to take one example) to have both an individual viewpoint (“I’m the Son”) and a corporate viewpoint (“We’re the Trinity”). The constituent members would also have a Trinitarian viewpoint, for they collectively constitute the Trinity.

This “corporate viewpoint” must have an owner, a subject, and that can only be the Trinity – that complex self. Why? e.g. the Son is not a we, but a he. But he adds,

Sorry, but I think this is confused. If I think, as an American, that football beats the crap out of soccer, that’s just another first-person point of view. It is just that the explanation for my having it, we’re assuming, is that I’m an American. The analogy would rather be this: just as each American has a first person perspective, so does America. So in his view, if e.g. the Son has a viewpoint as member of the Trinity, that just means that some subjective state of his is caused or explained by his relations to the Father and Spirit. This would be a three-self view of the Trinity, not a four-self view, which I think Steve holds to. But I’m sticking with the four-self interpretation, which is what I take it he thinks, or usually thinks.

He emphasizes that this is theological speculation, which it surely is. But I was asking what this Trinity theory is, which makes such great sense out of the Bible, better sense than any rival theory. I take it that this is it. If he wants to clarify further the relation between Trinity and the members of it, I’m all ears.

At the end of a recent exchange, I basically said: Dude, I don’t know what you think “the” doctrine of the Trinity is. What, in your view, does it mean to say that God is a Trinity?

He’s now responded here.

In this post, I try to understand just what he’s claiming, in other words, what he takes trinitarianism (rightly understood) to be.

This is a bit risky, because I think he’s confused about the concept of identity, and I’m trying to hear a self-consistent view here.

The first job in critical thinking is carefully listening to what the source at hand is saying. Here I listen carefully, editing out a lot of his methodological musings and terminological quibbles, trying to get to the meat of his view.

I think the meat starts here:

A conventional list of divine attributes would be something like the following: existence, omnipotence, omniscience, timelessness, spacelessness, aseity, love, wisdom, will, justice, mercy, goodness, speech, truth, unity, unicity, triality.

He then points out that in his view, God shares some attributes with other beings, while others are uniquely his. So,

…if a subject possesses even one uniquely-divine attribute, then, by implication, he must posses every uniquely-divine attribute. Likewise, he will posses the unique set of divine attributes.

The divine attributes include psychological attributes, like love, mercy, will, wisdom, justice, and omniscience. This implies a rational, personal agent.

Right. So, the one God is a perfect self – a being with will and intelligence. I agree.

…what does it mean to believe in three persons who are one God?

1) One elementary formula says God is three in person, but one in nature.

2) What is meant by God’s “nature”?

God’s nature is defined by the divine attributes (see above).

3) What is mean by “person”?

A subject possessing the psychological attributes which the Bible ascribes to God (see above).

4) What is mean by “one” in nature?

On God’s nature – we’re in the dark about whether it is a universal (shared by the Persons) or whether it is an individual thing, a component which could only by had by one thing. As the persons of the Trinity, I assume that he wants to say that they each have all the divine attributes, not merely the psychological or mental ones.  Later he says,

…each member [of the Trinity] possesses the sum-total of the divine attributes.

And I’m going to assume that he holds the divine nature to be a universal which is possessed equally by each of the Three.

After 4) he goes on an excursion about monotheism and the Bible. Eventually, of a text in Deuteronomy:

It says only Yahweh can be the true God, but it doesn’t say who can be Yahweh

and on the famous monotheistic passages in the middle of Isaiah:

They contrast Yahweh’s unique knowledge, power, and control with the idol-gods of paganism–who are false gods precisely because they lack these attributes.

But, of course, the Father, Son, and Spirit in Trinitarian theology possess these attributes. Therefore, the exclusive claims of Yahweh in Isa 40-48 don’t exclude the Trinity. They don’t create any presumption against the Trinity. They don’t speak to that issue one way or the other.

We can ask here, of whom is Isaiah speaking? Who is this YHWH? We might well think it is the Father, since the NT plainly presupposes that the Father of Jesus and the one true God Yahweh are one and the same. Of course then anyone else, would not be the one true God.

But if I understand him, Steve thinks Isaiah there speaks of the one perfect Self, who later, we learn, is the Trinity. Isaiah of course doesn’t say anything about whether or not this perfect Self contains or is somehow composed of other selves.

What is more, the NT applies Isaian monotheistic passages to Christ. That’s something he shares in common with the Father.

So in Steve’s view, both Father and Son are taught to “be” Yahweh, that is, to be parts (members?) of this one great Self which is the Trinity. He’s none too clear about this part-whole relationship. But he says,

Bottom line: Trinitarian Protestants are only required to affirm the unicity of God as Scripture describes the unicity of God. Scripture doesn’t tell us that the Father, Son, and Spirit can’t be the “one” God if some things are true of the Father that are not true of the Son and Spirit, or vice versa.

The “unicity of God” I take it stands for the claim that there is exactly one true God, this being YHWH/The Trinity.

Finally, a flurry of three dollar words:

…if I were attempting to explain how it’s possible for God to be three-in-one, I’d invoke enantiomorphism to model the one-over-many relation. The persons of the Godhead mirror each other, in point-by-point correspondence. The internal structure of the Godhead exhibits self-similarity.

Yet mirror symmetries are not interchangeable, for chirality is irreducible. Their interrelation is equipollent, yet irreducibly distinct.

Is a mirror symmetry one or many? That’s a false dichotomy. Enantiomorphism exhibits both properties.

In plain English, I think this amounts to: The Trinity (“the Godhead”) is a complex whole, a compound Self who has three parts (the three divine selves), and these three parts are exactly alike one another.

In sum, the one God is a perfect being, a perfect self, who is the Trinity. He has within himself three parts – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these parts fully has the (universal) divine nature, and so, each of the essential divine attributes. Each is a divine self. And these three parts are indistinguishable from one another, or nearly so, though they be numerically distinct.

Steve, is this right? I await correction here or at your blog, before putting forth any objections.

But if you believe a particular scholar is a sophist, restrict yourself to analyzing the arguments and let the reader draw the conclusion about your interlocutor’s character. Otherwise you merely create another road block to other people hearing and processing your legitimate arguments. (emphasis and link added)

Well said, Randal.

I would add that Jesus has a relevant teaching here:

Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5)

(No – I’m not implying that Stark is hell-bound.) I take it that Jesus’s point is about contempt - a settled hatred of, despising of, another. Jesus’ teaching is to leave this behind, even leaving behind (as far as possible) garden-variety anger. These are his standards.

I’m also reminded of this teaching by James:

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness. (James 3)

This whole attitude is wholly compatible with giving someone’s book or article a thorough refutation. And as Randal points out, a hefty dose of contempt will render your arguments largely ineffective, at least, to the very people you might hope to convince (as opposed to your own cheering section).

Sure, it feels good – but sin almost always does… at first.

Finally, I think of the men who taught me in grad-school – mostly non-Christians, mostly not even theists. They would gladly refute their opponents, and most thoroughly, but would never willingly descend to public abuse. If we are Christians, can our stardards be lower than theirs?

Many thanks to J.T. Paasch, Scott Williams, and Joseph Jedwab for their excellent posts! And thanks to the many great commenters here; we’ve had some vigorous discussions, and only very rarely have things gotten a bit too “hot.” You folks are awesome.

A few hastily chosen highlights, in no particular order:

• Some introductory posts on “The” Doctrine: 1, 2, 3.
• The Orthodox Formulas (scroll down).
• Some thoughts on heresy.
• A long series on Richard of St. Victor, source of the social trinitarian arguments that there can’t be just one divine person.
• Some answers about modalism.
• Islam-Inspired Modalism.
• Scott Williams’s posts on the theory of Henry of Ghent.
• Judging a debate been evangelical apologist Rob Bowman (mysterian) and Christadelphian (humanitarian unitarian) Dave Burke.
• “Trinity Monotheism” – the “social”  Trinity theory of J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig.
• Is God a self?
• A few exercises in, um, creative writing: Gnomes, some weird sects, confused World Vision sponsorees, and Stalin’s USSR.
• J.T. Paasch on Arius and Athanasius.
• Sarah Hutton on Plato and the Trinity
• Randal Rauser puts a bullet behind the ear of the time-wasting “Rahner’s Rule”.
• Nothing new under the sun.
• Identity.
• Dealing with Apparent Contradictions.

As always, comments never close. What have I left out?

What sorts of posts to you find the most useful? What can we do to make trinities better? Shorter posts? More contributers? More frequent posts? More linkage? Fewer or more stupid pictures? More or less historical stuff?

Please sound off in the comments.

Here, and here.

There’s some heat in addition to light, but it gets better as it goes on, and the inimitable James Anderson weighs in.

We discuss probably the favorite unitarian proof-text, John 17:3, as well as contradictions and methodological things.

Perhaps the most interesting point is Steve’s & James’s desire to somehow separate concern with consistency from exegesis. I think that isn’t, can’t, and ought not be done.

Check it out.

Update: some 4 posts so far. Have left lengthy comments.

Update: next to last installment.

Update: last.

Just recently, out of morbid curiosity, since it’s available free online, I watched all three hours of it.

Yes, the stupid, it BURNS! Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Hanks mumbles and lurches his way through the movie, like an unkempt Dennis Miller on downers. He was much better in… just about anything else he’s done.

The movie alternates between competent chase scenes, talky sleep-inducing scenes, and scenery chewing by evil, murderous, self-hating, conniving, comic book Catholic villains.

It’s directed by Opie, no less. And he seemed like such a nice kid!

At the end of the movie, the two main characters are reflecting on Jesus, in light of the cockamamie yarn they’ve just lived through. Saith, Hanks’s character:

The only thing that matters is what you believe. History shows us Jesus was an extraordinary man, a human inspiration. That’s it. That’s all the evidence has ever proved.

Yes, the author Dan Brown knows how to please – telling his audience exactly what they want to hear, and what is convenient to believe. Believe whatever you please. And of course Jesus was just a competent, admirable human. No grounds whatever for all that “Son of God” business. You’re right to ignore all that.

Why does it have to be human or divine? Maybe human is divine. …

Yes, folks, the wit and wisdom of Dan Brown.

In sum, the movie is anti-Catholic, and anti-Christian dreck. Moreover, Brown knows exactly what he’s doing – peddling foolish conspiracy theories to that segment of the public which is ignorant of Christian history, and which for various reasons would like to believe that the Evil Roman Catholic Church has been Hiding It All up till now. I’m well familiar with this segment of the public, as I teach philosophy of religion and religious studies at a state university.  Brown is happy to take their money and make them stupider, while making them feel they’ve been let in on wondrous secrets. I remember seeing an interview with him some years ago, and he very, very carefully walked the line of not quite claiming his novel to be historically accurate, while not denying it either.

If all of this isn’t depressing enough, there is the fact that stupid begets stupider.

I wouldn’t bother posting on this mediocre movie without providing some links to scholars eviscerating its absurd claims.

• Darrell Bock: no, there’s no reason at all to think Jesus was married. No, Brown’s ideas about how the four gospels are chosen is just wrong, and no, there was no close vote on Jesus’ divinity at Nicea in 325, nor was that the first time his “divinity” was brought up.
• Carl Trueman on why people enjoy conspiracy theories.
• Eminent Christian historian N.T. Wright, on what it all means.

Also, a famous demon weighs in. More reputably, some Catholic apologists weigh in. And some Protestant ones.

Finally, for those who prefer their refutations in video form:

This council said that we must confess that the Son is homoousion with the Father.
What did it mean? Same ousia. Does that clear it up?

OK, here’s more: same being-or-substance-or-essence-or-nature-or-something!

Whatever it was supposed to mean the “Arians” didn’t like it, and at the time, that was good enough. It was supposed to imply that Son, like Father, was “true God”, of divine status – however, unlike the Father, from true God.

Some were concerned in the immediate aftermath that the new formula was somehow modalistic (“Sabellian”). Aside from that fact the the word was first used by a modalist in the 3rd century, you can see why. If ousia is taken to mean individual entity, then it can be read as asserting Father and Son to be numerically identical – so that anything true of one has to be true of the other. However, it’s far from clear that at the time most took it that way.

When they translated the Nicene creed into Latin, homoousion became consubstantialem. In older English translations of the Catholic missal, this was “consubstantial“. But in the post-Vatican II era, there was an urge to clean up, modernize,  and clarify liturgical language. Thus, since 1970 they’ve been saying (in English language masses) “one in Being with the Father”.

Some criticize this for suggesting modalism. (Nothing new under the sun, people!) In any case, this translation is on its way out.

For some time, they’ve been fighting over how traditional liturgical language should be. For the obsessive, here’s a whole blog devoted to the missal-update.

The new version will go back to the old rendering:”consubstantial”.

People are criticizing this as being unfathomable to the average Catholic in the pew. Maybe so. But what translation isn’t?

A priest quoted in the New York Times story is more optimistic:

Father Hilgartner said, “We know that people aren’t going to understand it initially, and we’ll have to talk about it. I’ve said to priests, we will welcome and crave opportunities for people to come up and ask us about God. It’s a catechetical opportunity.” (emphasis added)

This, of course, supposes that the priest knows what it means!

One attempt I’ve seen, doesn’t inspire confidence. Here’s the exposition on “consubstantial”:

The Eternal Son, who was born of the Virgin Mary, is neither “like” the Father nor “practically the same substance” as the Father. The Eternal Son enjoys the very same substance as the Father. The Son possesses fully the Godhead of the Father.

Ehh… so it means that the Son isn’t like the Father? But he completely has the Father’s… “Godhead”? Clear as mud, I’m afraid.

Here’s a none-too-convincing argument that the new translation is better. Yes, much, much better.

And here’s an odd argument that the old “one in Being” just had to go.

“‘One in being’ is vague and open to misinterpretation,” said Father Roy. “The Father is the source of all being. He is the sole Being whose essence is his existence, and he gives all of us our being and existence. So, to a certain extent, we’re all ‘one in being’ with the Father. That doesn’t say anything unique about Christ.”

But if God is the source of all being, why would it follow that we’re “one in Being” with him? Unless, we’re talking about pantheism!

From the same piece, a priest makes a better point, though I’m not sure it really supports the change in question:

“Just because ‘one in being’ is three simple words in a row doesn’t mean that the average person understands what the phrase means.” (emphasis added)

That’s right. Apples noodle currency.

Maybe they should just be glad they didn’t change it to “of the same substance”.

But wait – if that phrase is even less intelligible, maybe it’d be all the more suitable! Check out another priest’s argument:

“When people first hear they’ll be saying ‘consubstantial,’ their first response is, ‘I don’t know what that means. Why can’t we use a word I understand?’” said Father Hilgartner. “But we’re talking about a mystery that no one fully understands and that can’t be fully articulated. In some ways the use of the word helps us confront the mystery, to stand before the mystery.”

I sort of agree with the spirit of this remark. Some initial confusion can be a good thing, if it stimulates inquiry and learning. But that “initial” is important!

Man, if I don’t love youtube. Never thought you’d here the words “modalistic monarchianism” in a rap?

Yo. Check it out this rap “Godhead” by Flame. Comes with bonus sermon excerpts.

My favorite rhyme, from verse 3: “Pentecostalism” with “cost of living”. That was a hard one! Well played. Second best: “Sabellius” with “belly is”. (Verse 2) He really should’ve worked in “Nestorianism” towards the end of verse 3, but I guess that would tax the rhyming skills of Snoop Dog himself.

The concern here is to refute “Oneness” folk. Take that, Winterband!!! Indeed – Sabellius was trippin.

After the break, the lyrics in all their glory, as posted on the youtube page, with the best bits bolded by me.

Verse 1: God eternally exists/ as being three in His personages/ Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and each person is/ fully God and there is only one God who subsists/ so chew on this/ cause this is meat and I’m certain of this/ His prerogative could have been to conceal Himself/ but we serve a God who has chose to reveal Himself/ to be certain of who we servin lets search the text/ because its urgent that we worship Him for who He is/ the topic of the Trinity should evoke some emotion/ for those who are chosen/ and also for those who oppose it/ examine close He’s distinctive in His entities/ thats why we contend for the Trinity in serenity/ we have no Christianity if God is not triune/ in that case we are were saved by whom/ then creation was made by whom/ then redemption was made by whom/ the consummation will take place by whom

Hook: Pastor Joe

/T-R-I-N-I-T-Y/ Its the trinity/ its the trinity/ oh blessed trinity

Verse 2: If we could peer in the past and see a system called dynamic monarchianism/ another system modalistic monarchianism/ before the session we gone focus on one of the isms/ modalistic monarchianism/ get to the core or the center where the belly is/ popularized by a guy named Sabellius/ trying to fight for the position of monotheism/ traditionally held by Jewish in they religion/ and that’s true but he started trippin in his position/ and said that God manifested Himself in different/ modes at different times this is real twisted/ thats why a bishop named Athanasisus had resided/ in a meeting in Nicea in 325/ A.D. where they debated was Jesus God/ and if He was, was He the Father the first time/ Jesus the second/ and Holy Spirit the third time/ while affirmed that the Father is God/ that the Son is God/ and the Holy Spirit is God/ good that ain’t gone solve it/ cause the problem is this/ it’s the simultaneousness/ that he denied

Verse 3: Modalism is back and its now packaged as Oneness Pentecostalism/ and it’s growing in numbers now like the cost of living/ and when they hear this I’ll be labeled a Pharisee/ but the Assemblies of God already labeled it heresy/ in the 20th century when it first emerged/ and ever since its birth its been hurting the church/ in conclusion a myriad of questions I ask/ cause its confusing and steering away at the masses/ I pose to you question number 1/ you mean to tell me that the Father is the Son/ well who was He praying to in the garden of Gethsemane/ I guess you’ll say He was prayin to His deity/ so you sayin that His human side/ is prayin to His divine side/ that is Father/ In that case then there are two beings/ in the person of Christ is that what you are seeing/ no that’s not the scriptures that’s confusion/ and it takes stabs at the hypostatic union/ and that’s that the one Jesus/ is 100% man and 100% God/ not 100% Father and 100% Son