Richard Swinburne on the Trinity - trinities 057
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 10. 2014
- trinities.org/blog/archives/6575 Professor Richard Swinburne holds that by reason alone, we can show that it’s reasonable to believe that God exists. This is, historically, a popular view, and one which many educated Christians hold today. As he mentioned in our previous episode, it only went out of fashion when the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s opinions (but not his arguments for them!) became educated peoples’ assumptions. (He held that all the arguments were unconvincing, and that in principle no successful argument for God’s existence could be made.)
But professor Swinburne has argued that also, we can argue from reason alone that the one God is a Trinity. This, historically, is a small minority view. I’m only aware of similar arguments being accepted by Richard of St. Victor, Stephen T. Davis, and William Hasker. With Swinburne included, that makes one theologian from the high middle ages, and three in the 20th-21st centuries. (Although there are a few suggestive thoughts along these lines in Augustine.)
As he explains in this episode, such an argument depends on a particular way of thinking about the Trinity. In his view, the Trinty consists of three perfect selves, each one omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. He argues, roughly, that if there is one such, then there must be exactly three such. One alone would not, he argues, be perfect. And together, they are the one God, collectively, the underived source of all else.
Is this really the right way to understand the “Persons” of the creedal statements? How can there be more than one omnipotent self? How can this count as monotheism? And does this fit divine revelation, particularly in the Hebrew scriptures? If his view is correct, why shouldn’t Christians confess belief in three gods? Professor Swinburne expounds his views and answers these objections in this episode of the trinities podcast.
Weekly podcast exploring views about the Trinity, and more generally about God and Jesus in Christian theology and philosophy. Debates, interviews, and historical and contemporary perspectives. Hosted by philosopher of religion / analytic theologian Dr. Dale Tuggy.
Also, he said God will be jealous if he did not create a equal... But the mere fact is, Exodus 33:4(I might be wrong) God said, CAUSE I AM A JEALOUS GOD.
This why don't you have a quadranity or pentanity, or hexanity
4:26 - Swinburne sounds like a subordinationist. order entails differences in equality?
Final point is, he is making assumption about God's personality, and judging God in such a way that says, if God doesn't do such such, God is not such such.
Richard Swinburne pays insufficient attention to what the Nicene Fathers meant by the term "person" (prosopon in Greek; persona in Latin). In the ancient world "person" did not mean an individual centre of consciousness but a "mask" worn by Greco-Roman actors. In fact the term was appropriated by the Church Fathers from the Monarchians, who were essentially modalists, that is, God _appears_ to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but in Himself he is not as he appears to us. Karl Barth has shown that "person" did not mean an individual centre of consciousness; and he redefines the term as "seinweise", which is "mode of being". The One God has three modes of being within himself, not just as an appearance to us.
+bayreuth79 One question is what various 4th century theologians meant by those terms. But perhaps a more important one is what status must Father and Son possess for the NT to be true. There, they talk to one another, cooperate, one sends the other, who then obeys him, doing his will, they both have knowledge but one knows more than the other, and they even occasionally have a difference of preferences for what should happen next (Gethsemane). All of this arguably requires them to be two selves. Of course, any literal "god" is by definition a mighty self, and so the one true god, God must be. And Jesus is explicitly said to be an anthropos, a man - a human self. The problem with Barth is that he seems to think there is but one self between Jesus and the Father.
I do not agree with Barth on the Trinity per se, only his understanding of what the term "person" meant in the 4th century. I actually wrote an essay arguing that Barth's trinity is incoherent. I cannot make much sense of Western or Eastern articulations of the Trinity, either in terms of their inner coherence, or with respect to scripture.
+bayreuth79 ; Stopped paying attention to anything you said after "Richard Swinburne pays insufficient attention"... Perhaps you should head on up to Oxford and enlighten the staff on the Classics and Church history.
That is a rather absurd remark. Is Swinburne's work beyond reproach? I think not. My comment was based on the work of much greater Christian thinkers than Swinburne, such as Karl Barth and Carl Rahner. I would also add that there are many scholars who regard Swinburne's Trinitarianism to be indistinguishable from tri-theism. One of the world's leading scholars of Nicea, John Behr, has made the point that Swinburne, et al, misconstrue the meaning of "persona" (Latin), "Prosopon/Hypostasis" (Greek).
I should also mention the fact that I have corresponded with Swinburne on this point and he wrote "I understand what your cited scholars are saying and to a certain extent concur with their deliverances; but while I can see that their interpretation is valid, I think that mine is as well".
Jon I cannot decide if this was intended ironically? I couldn’t give a damn about his “a priori” reasons (such reasons are often highly suspect). The fact remains that what Swinburne understands by “hypostasis” (translated as “person”) is a mistake. In the fourth century when the Creed was written the word did not mean “a centre of consciousness”. It meant an underlying reality or a mode of being. Scholars of the period are in agreement about this. We cannot change the meaning of the Creed to suit our own ends. Besides: if Swinburne were correct then there would be three gods- three centres of conscious, each of whom is God = a form of tritheism. And please don’t have the temerity to tell me to “repent” because I disagree with your theology. Fundamentalism doesn’t agree with me, I’m afraid.
It seems he doesn't understand his own English. Of course there is more than one meaning in English when someone uses the word god. In old testament the word is used for angels and the ghost of Samuel... In new testament it's used for people, angels and God Himself... It's, just like theos, or Hebrew Elohim, a word with plurality of meanings... One is to denote a singular entity from the spiritual realm.
If this is the case, I would rather believe in Hinduism, since they have 1000s of incarnation, which is more unselfish
This dude 😅
Thus, I have to conclude, the idea is stupidly naïve and weak, I apologize.