podcast 222 – Self-evident truths relevant to Trinity or Incarnation theories – Part 1

Not everything should be up for debate. Debates must start somewhere. As Christian philosopher Thomas Reid pointed out, humans are made such that, when we’re fully mature, and when we have certain common experiences, we will, on auto-pilot, know certain truths. He called this first principles, or principles of common sense. We can also call the self-evident truths – things that we, so long as our judgement is unhindered by various non-rational factors, can recognize as true, and even know to be true, without mounting an argument for them. Like lamps, they illuminate themselves, in addition to other things. As heard in a previous episode, Reid listed a number of self-evident truths which he had found to be contradicted by various philosophers’ speculations. But he didn’t directly apply this method to Christian theology.

That is what I try to do here. Over the years, I’ve thought through a number of ingenious, often highly original Trinity theories, ways of parsing the traditional formulas. Unfortunately, generally one rules the others out! I think that all of them, at one point or another, run up against what strike me as self-evident truths.

Of course, that I say that these things are self-evident, does not make them so. You’ll have to judge for yourself whether you know them to be true, and whether you think others ought to acknowledge them as well. For the most part, they have to do with simple conceptual analysis, although some have to do with basic reading comprehension, or points of metaphysics, epistemology, or common language use.

In this first part, I discuss the 20 self-evident truths below. If they really are so, then you can use them in judging between rival speculations about God, his Son, and his spirit.

And if they really are self-evident, then it is not “begging the question” to appeal to them when some Trinity theory or other is at issue, for what is self-evident will typically be more evident overall than some planks of that theory. To sacrifice the less evident in favor of the more evident is to yield to reason. To maintain a pet claim against what is obvious is to stubbornly resist reason.

Of course, as Reid pointed out, we can argue about the principles themselves, whether or not they really are self-evident. It’s not an easy argument to have, but it can be done.

As I explain in the podcast, most will be relevant to some Trinity theories but not to others.

1. Things identical to the same thing are identical to each other.
2. Beings which have differed, do differ, will differ, or could differ at one time (or in eternity) are two beings, not one.
3. If x is divine and y is divine, and x and y are different, then there are at least two divine beings.
4. If x has the essence divinity, and y has the essence divinity, and x and y are different, then there are at least two deities (divine beings).
5. If there are three divine beings, they are not exactly one divine being, no matter how closely united they are in thought, will, and action.
6. According to NT authors, the Father and the one God are one and the same.
7. The “spirit of” a self is not supposed to be a different self than that self.
8. If x and y enjoy an interpersonal relationship, then x and y are not the same self, but are two different selves.
9. As depicted in all the NT, Jesus and the Father enjoy a deep interpersonal relationship.
10. As depicted in all the NT, Jesus is one self and the Father is another self.
11. If the Trinity involves just one self in some way composed of or lying behind the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, then none of the Father, Son, and Spirit are selves.
12. A self is a being/entity, not merely an attribute, mode, action, or part of a being/entity.
13. No self is composed of other selves. (Selves can’t combine to form compound selves.)
14. Any deity just is a certain self. (The concept of a deity implies selfhood.)
15. The “God” of the Bible is supposed to be a necessarily unique deity.
16. The “God” of the Bible is supposed to be a necessarily unique self.
17. Worship is appropriately directed only to some self or other.
18. The primary and ultimate object of religious worship in the NT is the Father, aka “God.”
19. The “Holy Spirit” in the NT is never portrayed as enjoying an interpersonal relationship with the Father or with Jesus.
20. The “Holy Spirit” in the NT is never portrayed as or taught to be an appropriate object of religious worship.

Links for this episode:

• “my spirit” in the Psalms
• podcast 191 – Ware’s Outline of the Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity
• podcast 190 – What is the Trinity? A triad of book reviews
• podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation
• This week’s thinking music is “All Humans” by Jesse Spillane.