In my reading this week, an author at length wrote about God’s metaphysical and logical nature of existence. Specifically, it concerns the intelligibility and coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity when considering the doctrine of God. Relying upon Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher to frame philosophical and theological thought within the framework of human reason, 18th and 19th-century conclusions were prescribed around philosophy and theology from a human-centered rationale. Doctrines of religion were not spiritual but pragmatic and narrow from perspectives constrained by the limited domains in which they exist. To philosophical and humanistic reasons that deny spiritual and metaphysical realities as merely speculative in thought are generally dismissed from secular worldviews arising from Kant. Schleiermacher, a prominent liberal theologian, developed his doctrinal positions from Kant to surmise that religion is subject to feeling and experience as validated by human interaction or engagement.
Kantian epistemology brought further liberal reason that doctrines were subject to religious consciousness. The truth of spiritual realities was contingent upon receptive and permissive human acceptance or interaction. While supported by theological and biblical truth, God as a “Trinitary” Being is necessary in all possible worlds. Creation (humanity) is entirely contingent on the physical, abstract, and metaphysical realities they are set within. These are not theological judgments to which Trinitarian and Christological doctrines are formulated. They are from revelatory truth made from God’s presence within creation. The testimonial witness of the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and apostles carry far more significant credibility and bearing of truth without our realm of existence than the philosophical and scientific speculations and descriptions concerning our limited 3-dimensional space of reality. Consciousness as emergent within physically contingent beings is a constructed object. The noetic equipment serves as an interface of the mind and spirit to recognize God and truth as expressed.
As a sort of checkmate against liberal notions of God’s existence speculatively within people’s minds (as expressed by the doctrine of the Trinity). Or by a process theology that claims God exists unchanging and infinite as only governed by the laws of the universe (Erickson, 122), there are biblical truths and philosophical reasons to conclude otherwise. For example, see Peter van Inwagen’s views about contingency theory that points to the necessity of God (video (Links to an external site.)) to dismiss dependency upon contingent beings (liberal view of theological pragmatism). Or by the existence of God as Being outside Creation in its entirety (real, physical, abstract, metaphysical, spiritual) as stated by a primitive sense of where in this video (Links to an external site.) (4D space). Or watch the full video (Links to an external site.) here to understand how space constrains perception outside our realm of existence.
Logic as a construct is abstract and not a physical thing to experience. Meaning, God created EVERYTHING perceptive, imagined, or observed by His created beings, sentient or otherwise. I’m not entirely convinced that God is neither logical nor illogical but alogical. To help further, I still have this book, Infinity, Causation, & Paradox (Links to an external site.), on my bookshelf to delve through. The author covers topics such as Satan’s apple and Beam’s paradox (probability and decision theory), divine motivation, knowledge, and action. That is to infer God is to be outside of Creation for Him to create everything (including time, space, and the laws that govern the universe). By comparison, Millard Erickson’s book God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity often communicates from a process theology framework (at least section two). Moreover, at times, the book presupposes that eternal God exclusively operates within temporality and the presence of time. Eschatologically speaking, for example, where His people will take on resurrected bodies that are no longer subject to the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy or decay and death) present throughout the universe. The states of all three persons of the Trinity within a single essence as Elohim exist as a personal identity, without modal functionality, in Spirit to create and encounter. God as Trinity is transcendent, immutable, and immanent.
So basically, in my view, Kant and Schleiermacher were well-intentioned but often in error. But more than that, counterproductive as speculations presented to others built erroneous systems of thought off the mark from the truth of the Creator as Trinitary Being in perichoresis by “His” aseity. Even our perception of Him as given to us by the pronoun “His” is anthropomorphic (i.e., human-centered) as a divine act of will, grace, and mercy as He is the source of all such attributes, including love.
Getting beyond the what and how (science, philosophy) to the why (philosophy, theology), I often think its futile were it not for God’s Word and His Spirit within us. With all our searching for God as a people who grope in the dark (Isa. 59:10), here is such a poignant point to remember as the doctrine of the Trinity is modeled to us.
“Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.’ ” Not only does obedience to Jesus’ words bring a relationship to both the Father and the Son; the words are not even simply the Son’s words, but belong to the Father. The relationship between the Father and the Son is such that to be related to one is to be related to the other, but they are not simply different names for the same person. They are two closely related persons, whose actions are very much intertwined (Erickson, 201).”
Jesus’ spoken words for you in Scripture are from Creator God who gave His son to take our sins. It just doesn’t seem enough to understand the sacrifice on its face for what it did, but also the gravity of temporary intentional loss of perfect love between all members of the Trinity. When I think about that exchange, it kills me. Makes me think that nothing else matters whatsoever.
