Source: The Trinity — Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey, Chapter 1, p. 3
There are two things which are true of all theological writers. They are following a certain epistemological method in their search for truth and they are utilizing a certain hermeneutic in their interpretation of Scripture.
The problem with most writers is that they have never seriously reflected upon exactly what epistemology or hermeneutic they are using. They have interpreted unconsciously picked up their approach to truth and the way they interpret the Bible much in the same way that a dog picks up fleas. Thus they end up with a haphazard mix of conflicting ideas and methodologies.
Most theological writers do not reveal their epistemology or their hermeneutics to their readers because they are ignorant themselves of what hidden principles guide their search for the truth. We could not find a single book on the Trinity in which the author revealed the epistemological method which he used to discover truth and the literary principles which determined how he interpreted the Bible.
It is on this basis that we have decided to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity with a discussion of the epistemological method we will be using throughout this book. Since our only intent is to explain the method which will guide us in our study of the Trinity, we will not be giving a complete discussion of epistemology, but we will at this point begin with a brief introduction to the main branches of philosophy.
Philosophy is commonly divided into four basic branches, each focusing on a different issue:
| Metaphysics (being) |
Epistemology (knowledge) |
Ethics (morals) |
Aesthetics (beauty) |
Metaphysics deals with the nature of being or reality. Epistemology deals with how we know what is "real," i.e., true. Ethics distinguishes good from evil and right from wrong. Aesthetics has the task of distinguishing beauty from ugliness and defining the nature of art. Given the ugliness of most modern art, it is obvious that aesthetics has been much ignored in our generation.
While metaphysics decides the issue of whether there is any truth to find, epistemology asks how we know the truth. This question has been kicked around for several thousand years and a general consensus has been reached. There are several different methods by which truth can be discovered.
While a complete overview of epistemology would examine retroduction, abduction, and adduction as well as induction and deduction, we will limit our comments to the classical methods of induction and deduction.
Our own position is that theology is not limited to just one methodology. Some subjects are more suited to one method than they are to another. The chief error to avoid is reductionism in which one method is proclaimed as the only valid method.
The empirical sciences follow the synthetic, a posteriori, inductive method in which they move from human experience to all things including God. The inductive method attempts to move:
| Induction moves (The Scientific Method) |
Deduction moves |
|---|---|
|
|
The method is called synthetic because the scientist is combining a number of individual experiences into a single universal “law.” After obtaining the same result from a particular experiment time after time, the scientist, at some point, will feel that he can make a universally true statement which will cover all future experiments. This is what is commonly called a scientific “law.” He is starting from and with his own personal experiences and then making the leap to a universal law.
It is called a posteriori because the conclusion is arrived at after the experiments take place. He is not beginning with the universal law and then testing to see if it is true. The law is developed after experience.
It is inductive in that nothing conclusive can be proven. All he can logically conclude from induction is a certain degree of probability. The so-called “law” or concept has either a low, medium, or high probability of being true.
In logic, if you want a universal in the conclusion, you must have at least one universal in the premise. Thus you cannot logically make the leap to a necessary truth no matter how many particular experiences you pile up. Since the inductive method begins only with particular human experiences, its conclusions are only probably true to a certain degree.
The inductive method has been dominant in much of Christian theology ever since the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas. His adoption and defense of Aristotle's epistemology of induction was a watershed event in church history as well as Western history. Not only is Aquinas still "the" official philosopher of Roman Catholicism, but his approach to truth is the philosophical basis of much modern evangelical “evidential” apologetics as well as modern science.
Aquinas replaced the deductive methodology which had been followed by the early Church Fathers, i.e., Augustine, and later by the Reformers. Nineteenth century Reformed theologians, such as Charles Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield, committed themselves to the inductive method because they wanted theology to be accepted by the academic world as a legitimate science like math or biology. They did not realize that they had opened the way for such liberal theologians as William Sanday to undermine the inspiration of the Bible. By making human experience the Origin of truth instead of the God of the Bible, they had unwittingly made man the judge of God instead of God the judge of man.
Not much was written on the subject until the 1970's and 1980's when neo-orthodox and neo-evangelical theologians attacked the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. They claimed that the inerrancy of the Bible was the product of the "old" deductive method and, hence, invalid in the eyes of all those who use the inductive method. Orthodox evangelicals responded by either defending deductive reasoning or by developing new terminology.
The issue of inerrancy forced many evangelical scholars to rethink their naive adoption of the inductive scientific method in theology. After all, since God cannot be weighed or measured in a laboratory, theology was not really an empirical science per se. We must face the truth that Christian theology did not come from “below,” i.e., human experience, but from “above,” i.e., special revelation.
In distinction to Aristotle's inductive method, adopted by Aquinas for use in Christian theology, we will be using the analytic, a priori, deductive method which moves:
| Induction moves (The Scientific Method) |
Deduction moves |
|---|---|
|
|
Most evangelical Christians have heard the principle, "Do not interpret the Bible according to experience, but experience according to the Bible." This principle is the very heart and soul of a priori deductive reasoning. Instead of beginning with human experience as the measure of all things including God, we should begin with God as the measure of all things including human experience.
The epistemological method followed in this book is analytic because we will begin with the Trinity as the “given” of special revelation and then deduce various theoretical implications from it.What do we mean by the word “given?” The “given” is the “first principle,” “founding principle,” “opening presupposition,” or “starting axiom” which forms the basis of a system and from which the details of the system are deduced.
Obviously, you have to begin somewhere with something. That “something” is what is called in theology the “given.” If the implications or deductions of that “given” are demonstrated to be true, then the “given” must be true as well. Our method is deductive in that the premises and conclusions are so related that, if one is true, then the other is necessarily and conclusively true.
In geometry the “given” concepts are called axioms. Geometry begins with certain concepts which are unproved, but from which the rest of geometry is deduced. Theology also has its axioms or beginning principles. This is why we do not hesitate to begin with the doctrine of the Trinity as our a priori axiom.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a priori because it does not originate from human experience, but from special revelation. Indeed, any concept of God which has its Origin in human experience should more properly be labeled anthropology or psychology, than theology.
Our method is deductive in that the premises and conclusions are so related that, if one is true, then the other is necessarily and conclusively true. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid while an inductive argument is merely probable or improbable.
Perhaps the following illustration will help the reader to understand the difference between these two methods. There are two ways to learn about the automobile. You can begin with the individual parts and tear it down into its individual parts. Or, you can begin with the individual parts and put them together to make a whole car. Your knowledge will thus come either from "above" or "below." It will involve a tearing down or a building up.
The method we are proposing begins "from above" with the doctrine of the Trinity as our a priori, i.e., as the theological given, and then asks what must be true in order for the Trinity to be true. It is transcendental in this sense.
We will begin with the doctrine of the Trinity and then deduce from it the kinds of things which “must be” in the Bible. If we find what “must be” in the Bible, this is conclusive proof that we were on the right track to begin with.
Perhaps the reader is thinking, "This method is not fair. You are beginning with the Trinity as your a priori and then proceeding to the evidences." We gladly admit that we are beginning with the Triune God as an a priori truth for two very good reasons.
First, this where the Bible begins with the axiom of God’s existence (Gen 1:1). The Biblical authors do not begin by appealing to human experience to prove that God exists. Thus God's existence is never an issue in the Bible. The authors of Scripture begin with God as the explanation for the existence of man and not vice versa. To them God is the measure of all things—including man.
In his compelling book, Toward A Recovery Of Christian Belief, Dr. Carl F. Henry argues cogently for a return to deductive reasoning in theology:
Empiricism has been much the vogue in recent evangelical theology. While it is not pressed the length of making sensory observation and laboratory verification the only reliable way of knowing,, it nonetheless encourages a theological appeal to particulars in search of a universal, rather than postulating a universal explanatory principle subject to testing. Any deductive exposition of Christianity is therefore disparaged.
Modern loss of interest in the history of doctrine plays a part in such discrediting of deductive theology. Many evangelical seminaries in fact offer no course whatever in historical theology.
Most conservative Christians are therefore unaware that Christendom's earliest systematic theology began with God as the basic axiom and from this explanatory principle derived the content of the Christian religion.
Ever since the beginning of the Christian era the operative methodology for systematic theology has been mainly deductive. Augustine and Anselm championed theological deduction. Not until Thomas Aquinas proposed an empirical alternative in the twelfth century was the deductive method seriously disputed.
Every theology or philosophy has a starting point enabling it to get under way. Euclid's classic work on the Elements, written about 300 B.C., stated the five postulates or unproved principles concerning lines, angles, ad figures from which he deduced geometry.
What distinguishes Christian axioms from rival axioms is not that Christian axioms are a priori; all axioms are. "No one can consistently object," writes Gordon H. Clark, "to Christianity's being based on a non demonstrable axiom. If the secularists exercise their privilege of basing their theorems on axioms, then so can Christians. If the former refuse to accept our axioms, then they can have no logical objection to our rejecting theirs."
As Alvin Plantinga put it, "... the Christian philosopher is entirely within his rights in starting from belief in God ... He has the right to take the existence of God for granted and go on from there in his philosophical work just as other philosophers take for granted the existence of the past, say, or of other persons, or the basic claims of contemporary physics." In Plantinga's words: "The Christian philosopher quite properly starts from the existence of God, and presupposes it in philosophical work...
Henry, Clark and Plantinga are right. It is time to take back the high ground of the deductive method. We need to be biblical in our epistemology as well as in our theology.
Second, the non-Christian begins with his own set of presuppositions. He assumes that his first principles are a priori truths. Even the idea that induction is neutral is an a priori concept.
Just as the Christian philosopher begins with the assumption that God is the measure of all things, the humanistic philosopher begins with the assumption that man is the measure of all things. To the Christian philosopher, the existence of man is justified by the prior existence of God, while to the humanist philosopher, the existence of God is justified by the priori existence of man.
The Archemedian point of non-Christian philosophy and religion is the a priori assumption that man is the Origin of truth, justice, meaning , and beauty. The humanist assumes that he can understand God and the world by himself, from himself, and with himself without any help from God. Whatever is "thinkable" to him is true and real, and whatever "unthinkable" to him is neither true nor real. He assumes that he is autonomous because he assumes that he does not need any special revelation from God to understand metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, or aesthetics.
The Christian's a priori is based on God's revelation in the Bible just as surely as the non-Christian's a priori is based on his experience in the world. Thus the real question is not who has a priori concepts, but whose assumptions pan out in the real world. If the Christian system is true, then we would expect to find certain things true as well. If the non-Christian system is true, then we would expect to find it verified in the real world.
Perhaps it would be helpful to apply this method to the existence of God. Logically speaking, the existence of something is always prior to the issue of its nature. After all, if God does not exist, it would be a waste of time to discuss the Trinity.
The amount of ink and blood that has been shed over the existence of God reveals its irresistible attraction to the human mind and its intrinsic capacity to inflame the human heart. For this reason, it is important to approach this subject with the following eight foundational principles in mind.
There is absolutely no logical relationship between the existence or non-existence of God and the arguments which someone advances to prove or disprove that existence. God's existence or non-existence does not depend on human belief or denial. God can logically exist or not exist, regardless of whether everyone affirmed or denied His existence.
Since God's existence or non-existence does not depend on us, this should prove to be quite humbling to both theists and atheists alike. Atheists are quite irrational when they announce that God does not exist because they feel they have refuted some particular theistic argument. What they fail to understand is that refuting a theistic argument, set forth by someone, does not logically negate the existence of God. It is totally irrational to think that it does.
Theists also need to be reminded that God does not exist just because they think that they can prove that He exists. God's existence is not dependent on their ability to demonstrate it to those who do not want it demonstrated.
When the early explorers from Australia described an animal which lived in the water, had the bill of a duck, the fur of a beaver, laid eggs, and was a mammal, such claims were dismissed as "unthinkable" by European rationalists. Even when some skins of this animal were brought to Europe, they were denounced as clumsy frauds.
Obviously, someone had sewed together various parts from different animals. It was not until someone brought to Europe a live animal that it was grudgingly admitted that such a creature actually existed.
What is germane to our point is that while the arguments raged back ad forth in Europe as to whether or not such an animal existed, the duckbilled platypus blissfully continued its life of ease because its existence did not depend on whether Europeans believed in him or not.
If some or all of the theistic arguments presented by one particular author are discovered to be weak or invalid, this cannot logically decide the issue of God's existence. Since there are thousands of books, in which different authors present many different kinds of arguments for the existence of God, it is irrational to assume that if you have answered one of them you have answered them all.
Theists are not limited to the five inductive arguments formulated by the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas. Atheists need to take special note of this fact for they seem to be trapped in a time warp, continually harping on Aquinas' five arguments. Once they have, at least in their own mind, refuted the Aquinas formulated his arguments, they have the nasty habit of declaring "God is dead," or some other equally obnoxious nonsense.
Why should theism be limited to the formulations of Aquinas? Why ignore the arguments for God's existence set forth by other Christian apologists? After all, philosophy did not begin or end with Aquinas.
Not all arguments are created equal. Some of them are good and some of them are bad. Some are weak and others strong. Some are logically valid and others invalid. Some are smart and some are stupid.
Down through the years, theists and atheists alike have given some really poor arguments to prove their case. For example, the argument that “Something is true if you believe it” is just as absurd as saying, “Something is false if you disbelieve it.” Reality does not have to conform to what you think it is.
An atheist told me that God did not exist because he had prayed and God did not answer him. On the basis of his unanswered prayer, he concluded that God did not exist.
I pointed out to him that his argument was logically invalid. Besides, his bogus attempt to take his particular experience turn it into a universal, there could be other explanations as to why God did not give him what he wanted. For example, the Bible says that God will not hear the prayers of the wicked (Prov. 28:9). Thus, his unanswered prayer actually proved that God exists!
The nature of the God, whose existence you are attempting to demonstrate, determines the nature of that demonstration.
If you are seeking to demonstrate the existence of white crocodile, who is worshipped as a deity in a certain Hindu temple in India, a trip to that temple to see this crocodile is logically in order. That is, the existence of a finite material being, in this case a white crocodile, can be empirically demonstrated through the five senses. If you can see, hear smell, touch and taste the crocodile, at least you know, in an empirical way, that it does, in fact, exist. A material demonstration is therefore all you need to prove the existence of a material creature.
If you are trying to prove the existence of a material God, then all you need is a material demonstration. But, if the God in question is an infinite spirit without any material nature, then it would be logically invalid to demand an empirical demonstration. Thus, when atheists demand that they must see, touch, weigh and measure God before they will believe in Him, they are irrational.
This is why Christian theists have produced so many rational arguments for the existence of God. Belief in the existence of an immaterial God will generate immaterial proofs.
Any proof which falls short of demonstrating the existence of the personal and infinite God of the Bible is only as good as far as it takes you.
If you hire a taxi to take you to the airport, but it drops you off one mile from the airport, the ride was good only as far as it got you. But it still fell short of reaching the goal.
In the same way, any argument for the existence of God which "drops you off," before you arrive at the infinite, personal, triune God of the Bible, falls short of reaching the goal. It may be good, as far as it takes you, but it does not quite reach the goal.
For example, many theists argue that every effect requires a cause equal to or greater than the effect. From this premise, they argue that the entire universe is one vast effect which needs an even greater cause. Of course, this cause can only be God.
What they fail to understand is that the first premise actually says that every finite effect requires a finite cause equal to or greater than the effect. A finite universe will therefore only require a finite cause equal to or greater than the universe. Thus, the argument from cause and effect does not take us all the way to an infinite God. It actually "drops us off" at a very powerful finite god just large enough to create the universe.
Now, this does not logically mean that an infinite cause could not have created the finite universe. Any atheist who makes that claim is irrational. It just means that, logically speaking, a finite effect does not require and infinite cause. A finite cause is sufficient.
By the way, atheists should not take any comfort from this observation. Just because the taxi did not take us all the way to the airport does not "prove" that the airport does not exist. In the same way, just because the argument from cause and effect does not take us all the way to an infinite, personal, triune God does not prove that He does not exist. But it at least gets us going in the right direction.
One other point must be raised. In several debates with atheists, I have deliberately used the cause and effect argument
for God's existence just to hear the atheists say, "The cause and effect argument can only prove that a finite god
exists." I stop them at this point and point out that they are admitting the existence of a finite god which means that
they are longer atheists! A finite god powerful enough to create the universe is certainly powerful enough to deal with
the likes of them.
One argument that is logically valid is the method which asks the question, “What must be in order for what is to be what it is?” This method begins with what exists. Then it asks: “What must also exist in order for what is to be what it is?” The following examples may help us at this point.
If the outside temperature is zero degrees but the inside temperature of a house is seventy degrees, then there must be an artificial source of heat in that house somewhere.
| What is | What must be |
| The temperature outside is 0°C. The temperature inside is 20°C. |
There must be a source of heat inside the house. |
| What “is,” is the given truth of physics that the temperature inside the house would be the same as
the temperature outside the house, unless there is an independent heat source in that house. What “must be” is an
artificial source of heat. Otherwise the house would be zero degrees as well. When I begin to look around the house, I already know that I will eventually find a fire place, a wood stove, steam heat, a gas furnace, or electric heat, etc. Before I find the heat source, I already know that, “given” the laws of physics, it “must” exist because it “must be” in order “for what is to be what it is.” |
|
A friend who lives down the street tells you that someone has moved into the vacant house across the street from you. You ask how does he know that someone has moved into the house. For example, has he seen him? He admits that, although he has never seen him, he knows that he has moved into the house.
When you ask him on what grounds he bases his belief, he argues that, if someone were living in that house, certain things would also be true. For example, if someone were living in that house, you would expect to find the mailbox emptied every day, the lawn moved, lights going on and off, the newspaper delivered, the occasional noise of a TV or radio, and bags of garbage put out on the street for trash removal, etc.
You argue that none of those things, in and of themselves, prove that someone is living in that house. Someone may be stealing the mail out of the box every day! Or, some kid is mowing the lawn and picking up the newspapers. The lights and the radio go off and on according to an electric timer. In short, you give alternate explanations for each argument set forth by yor friend. Every time he gives you another "evidence" you respond, "Oh, I can explain that away."
While none of the "evidences" by themselves "prove" that someone is living in the house, at some point the accumulative weight of all the evidences put together overwhelms your skepticism and, finally, you admit that someone must be living in that house even though you have never seen hum.
Your friend was operating on the question, "What must be in order for what is to be what it is?" If someone were living in that house, and that is the "given," then certain things would naturally follow. In other words, you would expect to find certain things to be true.
For example, if someone were living in that house, you would expect to see garbage bags sitting out on the street Tuesday mornings. Why? You are assuming a priori that people generate garbage. Thus, it did not surprise you to find bags of garbage sitting in front of that house.
While alternate explanations can "explain away" this or that particular argument, when you put all the evidences together, only a fool would deny that someone was living in that house.
We will now illustrate the analytic a priori deductive methodology which we will be following in this book by applying the question, "What must be in order for what is to be what it is?" to the existence of God. This method begins with what exists. Then it asks, "What must also exist in order for what is to be what it is?" The following examples may help us at this point.
If we begin with the God of the Bible as our a priori, what kind of universe would we expect to find? For example, given the biblical doctrine of Creation, we would expect to find that the universe is not an illusion as some Eastern religions claim. The existence of the universe is one of those things which "must be" in order for God's existence "to be what it is."
There is a great deal of evidence that the universe is not an illusion. The fact that we can predict when a certain comet will pass the earth or the fact we can land someone on the moon are the kinds of things that would be true if the universe is real and not an illusion.
Or again, since, according to the Bible, God alone is eternal and self-existent, we would expect to find that the universe is decaying and dependent. In other words, we can deduce from the given of God's existence that when we investigate the world around us, we discover that the universe:
The observations of science, the laws of logic, and personal experience demonstrate that, in order for the universe to be eternal, in one form or the other, it would have to be infinite, autonomous, self-renewing, and perfect. But the presence of rust, super-novas and the energy crisis is sufficient to prove that the universe is finite, dependent, imperfect and decaying. For example, given the rate at which the sun gives off its energy, it could not be eternal, self-renewing or infinite. It will cool off and collapse one day.
The point is that, if we begin with God as our a priori, we can deduce from this that the universe will exist in a certain way as opposed to existing another way or not at all. And, when we examine the universe, lo and behold, it is exactly the kind of universe that we deduced that "must be" in order for God's existence "to be what it is."
The analytic a priori deductive method states that "the existence of the God of the Bible explains why the universe exists in a certain form." Since God exists, then we would expect to find that the form of the universe will reflect the nature of the God who made it. Thus it should manifest intelligence, emotion, will, humor, order, design, purpose, personality, etc.
Beginning with the existence of God as our a priori, we can deduce from this that, since man is created in the image of God, we should find that man:
Can chance, plus matter, plus time explain what man is? No. A non-personal, non-rational, non-moral, and non-aesthetic Origin for the personal, rational, moral and aesthetic nature of man is logically and scientifically impossible.
The existence of the God of the Bible requires that man exists in a certain way. And, when we look at man, he is exactly what we would expect him to be, if he were created in the image of God.
But we hasten to add that the same Bible also tells us that his image has been marred by man's fall into sin and guilt (Gen 3:1-15). Thus, we would also expect to find that man reflects a sinful nature as well as the glory of God. And, when we look around us, man is exactly the flawed creature that the Bible describes him to be.
Since God exists and He made man in His own image, then science is exactly what we would expect to find. Why? Science presupposes an intelligible universe. But this is only possible, if it is the product of a higher Intelligence. This is why it is perfectly natural for us to ask:
If the universe were simply the product of chance, plus matter, plus time, then science would have never developed because the universe would be random and without design or purpose. In short, the universe would be unintelligible due to its contingent nature. No one would ask about the purpose of something, if the universe were purposeless. No one would be amazed at the design of things, if the universe were random.
We assume that we can figure things out because everything has a purpose and a manifest design. We assume that things do not "just happen," but that they have a cause and an explanation. Thus, the existence of science is a monument to the existence of the God who created an intelligible universe.
Since God exists, then we would expect to find that man is a moral being who makes moral judgments according to a moral code that exists independent of his approval or disapproval. The non-moral cannot be the Origin of the moral. Without God as the infinite reference point and, thus, the Origin of truth, morality is impossible.
Since God exists and He made man in His own image, then the existence of beauty and art is exactly what we would expect to find. Aesthetics is possible only if we assume God's exitence as the Great Artist. True beauty is in the eye of the Beholder of all things because God is the measure of all things including beauty. It also explains why man can appreciate and create beauty.
This answers the old question, "Is a flower in the desert beautiful even though no man ever sees it?" Since the God who created it sees it, it is beautiful, regardless of whether man ever sees it.
That people naturally strive to find meaning to their existence and the things around them is exactly what we would expect to find if we begin with God.
Particulars cannot have meaning without an infinite reference point. If you begin with man as the measure of all things and attempt, inductively, to find a sufficient basis for truth, justice, morality, beauty or meaning, you will fail because that which is finite and relative by nature, can never become infinite and absolute by nature just because you want it so.
This last observation is quite simple. You may lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink! In other words, if someone does not WANT to believe in God, he will never CHOOSE to believe no matter how much solid evidence you set before him.
No one is born an atheist. It is something you choose to believe. Most of the time, it means that you have chosen not to believe in God because He did not do what you wanted Him to do. Since the vast majority of human beings have always believed in some kind of deity, atheism must be viewed as a psychological aberration.
There are many reasons why people choose not to believe in God—unanswered prayer, failure in attaining personal goals, hatred of God, rebellion against parents or authority figures, Marxist idealogy, immorality, drugs, family pressure, etc.
How is this method applicable to the doctrine of the Trinity? If we begin with the Trinity as an a priori concept, then we must ask ourselves, if the Trinity is true, what kinds of things should we expect to find in the Bible? Then, if we go to the Bible and we do in fact find those very things which "must be" in order for the Trinity "to be what it is," then we have all the proof we need that the Trinity doctrine is true. If we do not find those things then we have evidence that the Trinity is not true.
The only alternative is to begin with the a priori assumption that the Trinity is not true. While we can understand why the non-Christian would want to begin with this as his a priori, why would a professing Christian want to start there as well? To begin with unbelief is to lose the battle before it starts.
"What must be in order for what is to be what it is?" is a question which provides a solid method by which we can discover truth. We will begin where the biblical authors began—with the a priori of God as the Origin of truth, justice, meaning and beauty.
We must have unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, love in all things.
While you cannot be saved without being orthodox, you can be orthodox and not be saved. (Morey, p. 55)