Dr. Sinclair Ferguson said to our class...

[Petra]

...that “You can’t talk about the one without talking about the three. You can’t talk about the three without talking about the one.”

We know that the scriptures teach that God has dispersed his knowledge throughout the universe.

God is the truest form of unity in diversity as Triune.

The unity in diversity is why we now call the cosmos the universe. I remember one scientist claiming that if you look for order in the universe, then you will find order. If you look for chaos, then you will find chaos.

The university was named so by Christians first in the West. Since modernity, we struggle with being well-rounded, or to be liberally educated in the classical sense. There are few renaissance people today. Mostly we are in specialized fields. Universities have a problem and some may be more multiversities than universities.

So people have a problem with the one in the three and the three in one. It may be bad math. But it is good theology. It transcends human logic, or at least stretches the limits of it.

How does math figure out the known philosophical problem of the one and the many? It can't.

We can't figure out the apparent contradiction between classical physics and quantum mechanics. One is more focused on the subatomic level and the other is focused more on the macro level. This is my simpleton understanding.
Yet classical physics scholars admit to being driven mad at times by quantum physics, namely called quantum mechanics.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

Josh,

Dr. Ferguson was paraphrasing there from Gregory of Nazianzus: "I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one." This is then later (and more recognizably) quoted by Calvin in the Institutes.

 

[Petra]

Are there any other examples found in nature that these apparent contradictions exist?

 

[smalltown_puritan]

Are there any other examples found in nature that these apparent contradictions exist?

Josh,

I don't think the phrase "apparent contradictions" is a useful term when referring to the Godhead. I say so on the basis of category, not perception. If we were to say that God were in the same category as creation/creatures (which we know to be absurd), then the fact that He is indeed one God in three Persons - neither dividing the substance nor confounding the persons - would be a contradiction. But because God is in a category, as it were, all to Himself, it is most fitting that He is indeed one God in three Persons. There is no contradiction because He is the Definer of His own definition, as it were.

In other words, we ought not look to nature to understand the nature of God in His existence as Trinity Unity, and Unity Trinity; but rather we should look to the Scriptures and draw careful and reverent inferences therefrom, utilizing also the faith as delivered to us. That is why there is no analogy from nature that can explain the Trinity without going into heresies such as modalism, partialism, etc.

 

[Petra]

I mean that the Trinity transcends our logic.
Makes perfect sense to God.
It is an apparent contradiction to some of us.

 

[Taylor]

It is an apparent contradiction to some of us.

The Trinity might be a mystery, but there is nothing in the doctrine of the Trinity that is even apparently contradictory. It does not say that God is one in the same way that he is three, or vice versa. That would be a contradiction. Rather, it says that God is one essence and three persons. Now, we might not be able to understand how that works, but it is hardly contradictory, even apparently.

 

[Petra]

Okay

 

[Petra]

Mystery as in the virgin birth has to be logical?

 

[Taylor]

Mystery as in the virgin birth has to be logical?

There is nothing illogical about a virgin birth. We must distinguish between physical/natural impossibility and illogical. A virgin birth is naturally impossible, but not illogical. A flying pig is naturally impossible, but not illogical. A square circle, however, is illogical.

 

[Petra]

Christ being 100% God and 100% man is logical? What atonement could we have if the hypostatic union wasn’t both simultaneously?

If God revealing himself as Triune is the high point of Christian revelation in Matthew 28:18, then we should interpret through those lenses.

 

[Petra]

I’m stating that it transcends our minds.
What is wrong with that?
Doesn’t human responsibility and divine sovereignty?

 

[Taylor]

Christ being 100% God and 100% man is logical?

I’m stating that it transcends our minds.
What is wrong with that?

I am trying to tell you that illogical is not the same as transcending the understanding. You are conflating the two.

 

[Petra]

Grace and peace,

I’ll return later for my possible need of correction.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

Christ being 100% God and 100% man is logical?

While useful for general discussion, brief explanation and particularly teaching children, I do not think this phrasing of 100% and 100% is useful when held up to scrutiny or more intense discussion. Rather, the language of the creeds insist Christ is both true/very God, and true/very man - both natures in one Person with conversion (changing one of the natures), composition (making a third nature) or confusion (mixing the two natures). Of course 100 plus 100 does not equal 100 by the rules of logic. But this is not the mystery of the hypostatic union as it is revealed in Scripture and further explained in the creeds and confessions. The mystery revealed in the Scripture is that in the Lord Christ Jesus, both the true divine nature and the true human nature were inseparably joined together in one Person. Again, the language of our confessional/creedal subordinate standards provide for us foundational language that is more precise and helpful in devotionally meditating upon these rich truths.

 

[NathanielRCalloway]

.

 

[Petra]

Interesting. Thanks for your input.

 

[Petra]

What if I stated that Christ is 100% God and 100% Man, inseparably?

Christ is not 50% God and 50% Man.

 

[Eyedoc84]

What if I stated that Christ is 100% God and 100% Man, inseparably?

Christ is not 50% God and 50% Man.

After reading the last few comments, why would you insist on maintaining some sort of mathematical formula?

 

[Petra]

That’s because many think in terms of percentages and numbers these days.
I don’t see a problem. If I stated that the incarnation was not a half God and half man combo, but a fully God and fully man, inseparably...I’m stating the same thing as I just did above.
Plus, many already use the language below.

The covenant is 100% conditional upon the part of man. The covenant is 100% unconditional upon the part of God. We have lots of these examples. They are slightly different examples, but I’m doubling down.

 

[Andrew35]

That’s because many think in terms of percentages and numbers these days.
I don’t see a problem. If I stated that the incarnation was not a half God and half man combo, but a fully God and fully man, inseparably...I’m stating the same thing as I just did above.
Plus, many already use the language below.

The covenant is 100% conditional upon the part of man. The covenant is 100% unconditional upon the part of God. We have lots of these examples. They are slightly different examples, but I’m doubling down.

I would say the problem is that you give people too much credit for a clear grasp of mathematical concepts based on colloquial, oral patterns of speech.

For example, what does it really mean to say that you're "90% certain" of something? What does that even mean? How do you quantify certainty? Can you remember ever being, say, 40% certain of something?

Has anyone else ever thought about that, or is it just me? I fully confess, math was never my strong suit.

Anyway, point being, I doubt most people actually have a clear idea what they're talking about when they say something like "100% God, 100% man," which just adds to the confusion.

 

[Petra]

Disagree. It adds to explaining the importance of the Trinity because there is no atonement without the hypostatic union.
Notice that I stated “apparent contradiction” and not simply “contradiction.”

 

[Petra]

The fact that people think in “90%” type language and such further supports my claim for a 100% God and 100% man, both inseparably and simultaneously.

 

[Taylor]

I don’t see a problem.

The problem is that humanity and deity are not mathematically quantifiable. As a brother said above, if "90% God" is meaningless, then 100% is equally so. Plus, it opens the door for the understanding that Jesus is 200% something or, even worse, that he is two persons. It really is just best to stick with the language of the Bible and the Creeds: "true God" and "true man."

 

[arapahoepark]

The covenant is 100% conditional upon the part of man. The covenant is 100% unconditional upon the part of God. We have lots of these examples. They are slightly different examples, but I’m doubling down.

I think you have slightly it backwards here...

I agree that the notions of 100% tends toward viewing as two separate persons rather than natures, though I understand your point. The hypostatic union is a divine person who assumes a human nature and all that comes with it.

 

[timfost]

Disagree. It adds to explaining the importance of the Trinity because there is no atonement without the hypostatic union.
Notice that I stated “apparent contradiction” and not simply “contradiction.”

It has already been explained to an extent, but let me try for brevity. Since the hypostatic union is a union of two natures of different substances that cannot mix but remain distinct, there is no contradiction in saying he is fully God and fully man.

The same mathematical "problem" exists in us with body and soul. If I lose a leg, how much of my soul did I lose? When you distinguish between spiritual and material substances that cannot mix but are nevertheless in union, there is no problem, though for certain it is beyond our comprehension.

If we define logic as that which is comprehensible to the finite mind, then yes, these truths are illogical. However, logic and comprehensibility are not so closely intertwined.

 

[NathanielRCalloway]

.

 

[Petra]

Gotcha. Good stuff.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Josh,

I think in general what you are reaching for in this discussion is trying to articulate things that are beyond human understanding.

The problem is that you are reaching for tools within human reason to then give an example of how God is beyond human reason. I would caution you from trying to look for quantifiable or logical arguments that try to help us "reach" from the human to the divine in order to understand him.

One of the fundamental truths in historical theology has been the Creator/creature distinction in theology. It is sometimes technically called the archetypal/ectypal distinction. Archetypal theology is God's knowledge of Himself. Ectypal theology is man's understanding of God as he understands revelation - both general and special.

Archetypal and Ecytpal theology are not merely difference in degree of understanding. Another way of saying this is that God's knowledge is not different in the amount or degree of knowledge that God has. It's not as if that were we to have the right information we would understand things exactly as God understands them.

Rather, our knowledge is a different kind of knowledge. We have creaturely knowledge while God knows everything because He knows Himself perfectly.

Yet another way of speaking of this is univocal language versus analogical language.

If I'm speaking univocally it means I am speaking of or thinking of something in the exact same fashion as the other.

If I'm speaking or thinking analogically, it means that I have an analogy of or a form of the knowledge of the other. It's not wrong but it's not exactly the same.

The Confessions teach that we would have no fruition with God except that He would condescend to us by way of Covenant. Calvin said that God "lisps" to us as a father lisps to a child. It's true knowledge. It gives us a true understanding of God (as creatures can know) but we do not comprehend (know everything about) God or any subject in the way that God knows.

This has been a problem in more recent years as some theologians have rejected the notion that our knowledge is analogical. They insist we know things the same way as God and the difference is a matter of degree and not kind. A good example is William Lane Craig (WLC).

Mike Horton told me that WLC was a guest at one of his classes and one of the seminary students asked WLC whether his knowledge was univocal with God's. He replied that "Yes"he believed that.

What is the consequence to theology in this case?

For WLC, he prioritizes philosophy and has even instructed his students to prize that knowledge first.

Why is this?

It makes perfect sense that if you believe that your knowledge of reality is the same as God's (but just a matter of degree) then you can reason from below to above. You can reason as to what "good" is and, as long as your philosophical reasoning is sound then you've established something that you know about God.

If you listen to WLC, you'll notice this is how he rejects many doctrines we confess. He doesn't base them on exegetical grounds but proceeds from what he philosophically knows to be the case about God's goodness and then looks for any Scriptures which would preclude his reasoning from being false. If the Scriptures can be read in a way that allows for his reasoning then he knows that it is sound.

His doctrine of middle knowledge (borrowed from the counter-Reformation) is a perfect example of univocal convictions in action.

In other words, two different theologians with the same Scripture approach things differently.

The one who thinks he reasons like God will reason from the creature to assert what God is like. The one who believes in the latter, looks to what the Scriptures teach and reasons that he understands things as they have been revealed to us.

Thus, the Trinity is not a violation of creaturely reasoning. It is revealed to us that God is one in essence and three in Person. The language we use is analogical because it is creaturely. It describes God but doesn't comprehend Him.

In fact, historically, the only distinction that the Church was willing to make about the internal relations of the Trinity is that the Father is begotten of and proceeds from none, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

We have confessed that for almost two millennia not because we have a comprehensive understanding of what the essence of the Trinity is but because that's the limit of what man can say concerning the ad intra relationships of the Trinity from Revelation. We stop speaking where God's Word stops and realize we are creatures. It's not a matte of "logic" but of being creatures.

The same thing can be said about the hypostatic union. The Son of God is one Person with two natures. Everything that is said in the definition of Chalcedon is carefully worded to avoid a host of errors that men come to by the idea that they can reason as men and understand what that means. The creed provides guard rails for us to say what we can (as creatures) and stop speaking where God has stopped speaking.

Speaking any more or trying to make it understandable by human reasoning only ends up denying the reality that we are creatures and He is the Creator.

 

[RamistThomist]

What if I stated that Christ is 100% God and 100% Man, inseparably?

Christ is not 50% God and 50% Man.

The percentage terms imply quantification, and you can't quantify human or divine natures.

 

[Petra]

Fully God and fully man...inseparably and simultaneously.