Doctrine & Science of the Trinity II
Francis Bacon says a little science drives us away from God but more of it brings us back to Him. Photo: ThoughtCo.

Doctrine & Science of the Trinity II

One frequently surfacing explanation is that the nature of God cannot be understood by the human mind because they do not belong in the same sphere as what is trinity in the divine may not have corresponding occurrence in the terrestrial.

I find the ambiguity of the Trinity doctrine very attractive because it seem like a major requirement of truth; for truth is never simple and the truth of God should not and cannot be readily comprehensible to humans, whose senses, Kant argued, is wrapped in the world’s dimensions. I wish to invite the few who think the basis for this doctrine unsophisticated to the next phase of our discussion as I mumble in the words of Thomas Huxley, that the lord has delivered them into my hands.?

?In page 5 of the 1989 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania publication, Should You believe in the Trinity?? a certain Monsignor Eugene Clark is? said to have made a statement which we will shortly show to be misguided.

“God is one, God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it but only accept it.”

If Monsignor Clark’s assertion is misguided then we consider Jesuit Joseph Bracken’s statement a little worrisome for claiming that the Trinity is a matter of formal belief with little or no effect on day-to-day life. Bracken’s opinion is the antithesis of our proposition and every single moment of our discussion hereafter is meant to disprove him. If we want to hold the Trinity as fundamental truth then we should expect some form of trinity in nature because of the Unity of Experience, which we have shown to be sufficiently affirmed in philosophy and science. For the reasons that we have already discussed, we think it necessary for nature to be mirror or shadow at least, of the ultimate extra-natural reality. More importantly, we hope to synthesize fundamental principles from this superreality of the Christian Trinity. As we have discovered, we cannot proceed without a bit of introspection. Are we taking another cultural symbolism too seriously, gradually becoming the fundamentalist we hate to become? I must assure once more that our discussion on Trinity is not much of theology but of sociological and scientific extrapolation. And the premise of all these is simple logic. If creation were made of Logos then we must expect the attributes of Logos to hold sway in creation and, in the case of our own discussion, the nations of people.

?If we agree with Richard Hooker in his assertion that the world is cosmos and not chaos 5 and if we join that notion with the general concept of Logos, with the present state of the world’s know-how then we will open our minds to a whole new branch of study that will gladden the heart of Immanuel Kant greatly and make looters sincerely anticipate repercussions for their offences, and cheats to expect consequences. We will gladden the heart of the altruistic fellow as we remind him or her not only by the words of faith but also by pragmatic science that they are threading the right path.

?The truth of humans, we might have noticed, is seldom idealistic. It is often plastered in the paints of reality- stark and lacking in drama. Speaking of falsification, we cannot falsify a suitor’s love for a lady because of his initial lovelessness. We cannot judge a theory or doctrine by its origina , the same way we cannot judge a musician by the manner of his or her creative process. Our truth may be synthesized even from opposing views as Aristotle teaches. We know that the concept of Trinity is not original to the Christian faith- that it evolved from the reactions of the 4th Century church fathers to the teachings of the clergyman from Libya, Arius who believed that Christ was not of the same substance with the Father. We know that Trinity was not explicitly mentioned in the scripture but we simply do not consider origins as more important than reason.

?Saint Augustine’s analogy 6 betrays unacceptably the characteristics of mere speculation. While he may be right, we consider the delivery banal for using the synonym that his Trinity finds in human body, spirit and soul. Many explanations for the Trinity are way too predictable, lacking in the depth that one would expect from that supposedly incomprehensible concept. However, some thinkers have played our positive stereotype. The Trinity doctrine, says E.B. Ford, is a way of explaining the activeness and liveliness of God. Ford sounds a lot more plausible and less dogmatic for it is very essential to expect of a being existing in all possible dimensions of nature and extra-nature to possess ‘multiple beings’. Now I will demonstrate why but not until I have reminded us of Bacon’s words that a little science takes us away from God and more of it brings us back to Him.


a Bertrand Russell, the Nobel laureate mathematician said; beginnings are apt to be crude but their originality should not be overlooked on this account.



5.????????? Richard Hooker posited that the world is a cosmos, not chaos, and that the idea of law is traceable to the very being of God himself.

The Social &Political Ideas of some Great Thinkers of the 16th and 17th Centuries; A series of lectures delivered at King’s college University of London during the session 1925-1926, Dawsons of Pall Mall, London, 1926, pg. 71

?

6.????????? Saint Augustine characterized Trinity as representing human body, spirit and soul.

Well said .??The truth of humans, we might have noticed, is seldom idealistic. It is often plastered in the paints of reality- stark and lacking in drama..

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了