More Trinity

Posted on March 16, 2008
Filed Under Philosophy | 5 Comments

The Holy Trinity (Painting in Salesian's Church in Turin Italy).jpg A blog named Heart Issues for LDS has mentioned my recent posts on the Trinity (two at M* here and and one here at MM) It’s an interesting blog. It’s written by a Baptism pastor from up in Idaho as I believe partially a kind of outreach program to Mormons and then a kind of ecumenical discussion. I’m always pleased when there is a kind of respectful dialogue rather than the kind of attacks LDS often encounter with Evangelicals. (As, unfortunately, demonstrated during Romney’s presidential bid).

To summarize my posts, while there are a few problem areas I honestly don’t think Mormon theology is particularly oppositional to the theology of the Trinity proper. I consider the main difference to be over the nature of existence and the rejection of creation ex nihilo. Further while I think there is some possible compatibility here clearly there have been major Mormon theologian, especially more nominalistic ones, with positions pretty opposed to the notion of the Trinity.

One interesting paper was Augustine Among the Social Trinitarians. It’s interesting given that even those who don’t think Mormons could ever be called Trinitarians often suggest our theology is quite similar to social trinitarianism. Blake Ostler in his books has taken a social trinity stance as well.

For those of you not up on the current debates social trinitarianism is the idea that the unity of the Godhead and the indwelling of one in the others is primarily due to relationships. Especially love.

I thought it was interesting that the author here describes social trinitarianism as “dangerously fashionable.” His primary concern is the “wholesale dismissal of Augustine.” Now I’m not a huge fan of how Augustine put such a heavy neoPlatonic thrust on Chrisianity. (Although it’s undeniable that what he creates is something new and novel and not really understandable as pagan Platonism) I especially don’t care for the authority he is given through the history of Christianity. It’s one thing to offer a theology but quite an other to be taken as so authoritarian in theological matters.

The point of dispute between non-Mormon social Trinitarians and Augustine that the author focuses in on is Augustine’s use of psychological analogy in understanding the unity of God. The author argues that Augustine’s point isn’t to understand God by way of humans but humans by way of God. Which is interesting. (And I’d argue one place Augustine continues to have relevance to even atheistic philosophers is in this approach)

One big problem in Latin discussions of the Trinity is the language of use. The term for the essence is “ousia” and the term for the persons is “hypostasis” but in Latin they had come to mean largely the same thing. (The Eastern Orthodox who tended to use Greek often brought this up) So when “substance” is used one has to be careful. (And this is why so many end up ascribing to the Trinity what is basically modalism – often by analogy to substance being material stuff)

The issue that Augustine brings up (and that I did in my posts) is that we have to make a distinction between creatures which we are “only able to speak in terms of modification and substance” and God. Now with the rejection of creation ex nihilo the question is whether Mormons could make this same claim about humans. Certainly in terms of our bodies we talk in term of substance and its modifications. But is there some essence to humans beyond this? Typically Mormons say yes. I’ve argued that the doctrine of our intelligences being co-eternal with God entails that the same way we speak about the substance of God in the trinity (such as the way Duns Scotus does which Heidegger and others appear to follow) is how we ought talk about the essence of a human soul. I’d hasten to add that not all Mormons view intelligences (or human essences) in this way. However I think a strong case can be made that some do. (It would seem to follow for B. H. Roberts, for instance)

Augustine also suggests that “begotten,” “unbegotten,” and so forth are only meaningful as relational predicates between the persons. Which I think Mormons would accept as well. (They seem obviously to be relational terms) However the ground (being in the paper) of the relationship must be logically prior to the relationship. Once again, I’d agree. We might disagree on Anyway, Todd Wood at Heart Issues asked me to comment on some posts on the Trinity. So I figured I’d put them in a posts. Most of the papers deal with God and relationships. And in that sense there’s not much to disagree with. As one paper put it, what we learn about God is about relationships and not merely roles.

Many of the other papers make similar points. They contrast the doctrine of the Trinity with the God of the philosophers. (See for instance the paper “Relationships and Not Roles”. This is interesting since one attack on the Trinity and mainstream Christianity by Mormon theologians and philosophers is that Trinitarians take up too much the “God of the Philosophers.” That is they see the God of the Trinity as focusing on philosophical absolutes rather than relationships. These papers argue that the relationships among persons of the Godhead are a type for the relationships we ought have. Mormons certainly agree although we go a step further and say it’s not merely a type but represent the same kind of relationships we ought have.

But it is funny that, just as Mormons frequently misunderstand the Trinity as modalism, Mormon thinkers often make the “God of the philosophers” attack as well. The Trinitarians, on the other hand, attack Arians as making just such a move towards absolutism and simultaneously often label Mormons as Arians. When we are anything but. (As I said, if anything we go much farther the other direction)

I should note that there is one more place where Mormons differ from the normal view of the Trinity. Just as, for us, the Father is essentially embodied, so too is the Holy Ghost. Whereas for Trinitarians the Holy Ghost is most unlike what we normally mean by person. Mormons treat both the Father and the Holy Ghost ontologically as much more like the Son. While this is a big difference I’m not sure it is a difference in the doctrine of the Trinity proper.

Related posts:

  1. Problems with Mormons and the Trinity
  2. McDermott Responds to Critics
  3. Claiming Christ: Evangelical – Mormon Dialogue
  4. Upcoming SMPT Conference
  5. Reading Club: Ostler 1
  6. Defining God

Comments

5 Responses to “More Trinity”

“essentially embodied, so too is the Holy Ghost”.

Could you explain this more, Clark?

I’m pretty sure that Paulsen and McDonald have an article in the forthcoming (recently released?) volume of Faith and Philosophy describing the social trinitarian roots of the Nicene Creed, or something along those lines.

Todd, Clark can correct me if I misread him, but I think he is referring to Mormon concepts of the materiality of Spirits. The Holy Ghost is believed to have a body of spirit, though what that means is somewhat speculative.

I think for most Mormons the Holy Ghost is ontologically akin to the premortal Jesus. i.e. embodied spiritually although it’s not clear what that means exactly.

Note: the Heart Issues blog had an other post where I made some comments.

Clark, nice to meet you! I enjoyed your thoughts, both on my blog and right here. Good stuff!

Leave a Reply