A Quick Anselmian Argument Against the Coherence of Orthodox Trinitarianism

 

 

On "orthodox" Trinitarianism (OT), the Trinitarianism expounded by, e.g., the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church, the second person of the Trinity, the Son, is eternally begotten of the Father. That is, the Son stands in an asymmetric dyadic relation of being eternally begotten of the Father. However, OT also teaches that each of the three persons of the Trinity, including the Son, is absolutely perfect. 

I believe that this is incoherent given the truth of certain extremely plausible metaphysical propositions. The following is my argument to this effect.

Stipulative Definitions and The Argument:  

A perfect being = df. a being who has all perfections and lacks all imperfections. 

Orthodox Trinitarianism = df. the Trinitarism held in common by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and classical Protestants.

1. (Suppose that) Orthodox Trinitarianism is true. [Assumption]
2. If (1), then the Father is perfect, the Son is perfect, and the Holy Spirit is perfect.  [definition]
3. If (1), then the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.  [definition]
   
4. The Father is perfect, the Son is perfect, and the Holy Spirit is perfect.  [1,2 --> E]
   
5. The Son is perfect.  [4 &E]
   
6. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. [1,3 --> E]
7. If (6), then the Son is ontologically dependent on the Father for his existence. [prem]
   
8. Therefore, the Son is ontologically dependent on the Father for his existence. [6,7 --> E]
9. Every entity that is ontologically dependent on another entity for its existence is not perfect. [prem]
10. Therefore, the Son is not perfect.  [8,9]
    
11. (5) contradicts (10); therefore, reject the assumption: It is not the case that Orthodox Trinitarianism is true. 

This reductio ad absurdum argument contains only two premises that are not either definitions or merely follow from the logical rules of inference, viz., (7) and (9). I regard (9) as obviously true. Being such that one is ontologically independent is a perfection. I know that this is true by intuition, and in the same way I know that being unconditionally loving is a perfection -- it just obviously is. And so the complement of this property, viz., being ontologically dependent, is an imperfection. And any being that has an imperfection is by definition not perfect. Hence (9) is true. So what about (7)? Well, I also regard (7) as obviously true. Talk of being begotten makes no sense to me whatsoever if it doesn't imply ontological dependence. Indeed, if one reads the early church fathers, it seems clear that those who held that the Son was eternally begotten of the Father believed that he was ontologically dependent on him and that his point of origination was somehow in the Father. They believed in an ancient view called the Monarchy of the Father, wherein the Father is the supreme being and source of all reality. Everything -- including the Son and the Holy Spirit -- originates in the Father. Now, I don't have time to dig up quotes to prove this point, but suffice it to say interpreting "being eternally begotten of the father" to entail "being ontologically dependent on the Father" is a completely natural straightforward interpretation of this locution, and one that I believe was the view of the early church fathers. Modern theologians and Christian philosophers may try to say that such a locution doesn't imply ontological dependence, but only something like logical dependence, whatever that means. But quite honestly, I see these attempts as nothing more than ad hoc theological rationalizations. Orthodox Trinitarianism, and hence Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., is simply incoherent given certain very plausible metaphysical assumptions.

عقيدة التجسد: تناقض مبين

 

المسيحية ديانة غير صحيحة. لم يكن المسيح الله.

واما يسوع فكان يتقدم في الحكمة والقامة والنعمة عند الله والناس. - إنجيل لوقا

واما ذلك اليوم وتلك الساعة فلا يعلم بهما احد ولا الملائكة الذين في السماء ولا الابن الا الآب. - إنجيل مرقص

عقيدة التجسد عقيدة متناقضة و هراء بمعنى الكلمة. الله المفروض يكون كامل المعرفة، غير مقترن بزمان و مكان، الخ. المسيح لم يكن كامل المعرفة حسب الآيات المذكورة آنفا و كان مقترنا بزمان و مكان لانه عاش و مات في فلسطين قبل نحو الفين سنة. فبكل بساطة المسيح ليس الله. اللاهوتيون عبر العصور حاولوا و ما زالوا يحالون ان يجدوا مخرجا من هذا التناقض المبين، فحلهم الأكثر سائدا او انتشار هو أن المسيح كامل المعرفة بلاهوته و لكن ليس كامل المعرفة بناسوته، مقترن بزمان و مكان بناسوته ولكن غير مقترن بزمان و مكان بلاهوته. فعلى سبيل المثال، يقولون ان كان المسيح يعلم وقت مجيء ابن الإنسان (وقت مجيئه) بلاهوته ولكن كان يجهل ذلك بناسوته.(١) هذا الحل مجرد لعب بالكلمات و لا يعد حلا حقيقيا. ليست الطبيعة هي التي تعرف، و إنما الشخص. طبيعة المسيح، لاهوته و ناسوته، لم تعرف شيئا ، و إنما هو كشخص يعرف الف أو باء. طبيعتي لا تعلم شيئا، و إنما أنا كشخص اعلم. اي، الطبيعات لا تعرف شيئا، الأشخاص يعرفون. لكل شخص S بوقت محدد T ، اما يعرف S أقتراح P اما S لا يعرف P. أما يعرف ان اثنين زائد اثنين يساوي أربعة اما لا يعرف. فان تقول انه يعلم P بلاهوته و لكن لا يعلمها بناسطه يعد مجرد لفا و دوران. يعني مثل ان تقول ان بوقت T انا اعرف P من خلال سروري و لكن لا اعلمها من خلال حزني. لا يوجد أي ارتباط هنا بين الوسيلة التي اعلم P و علمي ل P. بوقت T اما اعرف P اما لا أعرفه. خلاص. لا يوجد. مجال لللف و الدوران. ولكن اللاهوتيون إعتادوا على اللف و الدوران - هذا معظم شغلهم اصلا - اي، ان يخترعوا طرق لانقاذ العقائد الدينية من التسخيف و السخرية.

١. و على فكرة، بخصوصي معرفة مجيء ابن الإنسان، هذا الرد يعتبر هرطقة بالعقيدة الكاثوليكية. ولكن هرطقة هذا الحل يجعل حل المشكلة اكثر صعوبة للكاثوليك.