)q ,{[[nJarBJ Jo uos arD,, 'IIJ SV {.&1 rn asuas l€ql urgJB lew âarl3q Jnbrun sIIn s 'lou saop lns lr (lsrrg x lsxtqc sns SUJBJuI erp r ur8eq a26 iryaq aqa ES aq lsnur 1c a.re (szos r al3ril lBrD 'lsrrg3 sns e se elenb sry alru\ 1cs depung I e>lEl s<la-I oQ toqn rSolotsgqc )q ,r\oqs ol o] uoBca( J'uoqJeJ snsaf lerp Jo ueprnq ,gJIp eseqr )l peecoJd 'lc ETTDIETU 8€7 puB lrassB seul.DJop asarp lBq^' 8ururc1dxa f,gaFq .tq uEaq gnt 1 ' llul{ aqt puB uoq.EuJBJuI eql Jo seur.g'oop erp ]sure8e 1aae1 ,(ueu 1eq1 uogca(qo arp .,(pcexe sr terp le '.{:oprpeluor ,{1prt8o1 eJB saulJlJop esal{f IBI+ (Jole&\oq 'an5re .{lsnorres plnor!,.r ./l^,a{'sJaqaq .,(reurp.rou.uxa asaql lroddns o} aJuapr^3 luarsgJinsu sr aJalp teql ''a'1 'sualqord IErJuepIAa a,teq qedsog aql Jo .Qtcuolsrq ag1 puB lSrJr{J JO UotrJerrnseJ eLIl leql taldurexa ro3 'pen8:E aAEq ,{ueyg 'uotlsxpotxuoz D srol -ua l\ ll ro luagwuo?ut f,11etr8o1sl lI I JBarualqord .{11ec6o1 sr (sunelc go tas due ro .aurrJop 1o dpoq y 'srualqo-ld pc€o1 ]noqe perlf,aJuoJ lou sI euo uaqrrr dpo surelqo:d Fpuapna lnoqB salrlo.ry\ 3uo lng'Dadsns ro,{ppoqs ro 3ur4oe1 sr aJuaprla er{r rBIIr'rneuralqord .r\oqatuos a.re }r Sunarlag JoJ sprmor8 aql ter{r ,(es ot st srualqord I€rJ.uapIAa seq arurJop go dpoq e reqr .{es o1 'surlqotQ lDxlu"pxaa urog paqsm8upsp aq ot erB sua1qotd loct&uT 'r.IrrBJ uepsrrq3 eqr JoJ sualqo:d 7r43o1 aleeJJ ol ue{Et oq ol ,{1a4q rsoul saur4soP o,t\} aqt e:e ,{arp :lualp salrun lBql esla Sunrtauros s a:arp t&r -u"psll{J o} anbrun eJ€ suoqressB asaqt tBrF IJEJ eqr o} uoplppB qI 'lle/rl sa 1r qrqlr^\ ]nq qomqf, eql aprslno fpo lou (uolsnJroo Jo IBap poo8 e palBeJJ ser{ sunelf, go rted srq1 <<'auo ur aorp,, Jo aunl.E. sr peeqpoC ar.Ir IEI{r pu€ }srJ1{O sns -a{u1 aleu:e3w alrreJaq pog leqt eJE o{€ru sueasrrqC lerlt surrBIJ pcls,(qd -Blaru alnJupsp pue luecgru8ts lsour ôq aqr rer{r rqnop aFtII q araqJ uoFrnpo4ul roues 'o sBuror{J tt1.uqta aLlx puD uoxtuutmul aLIJ OI rity nctive meta- :arnate in JeThis pair of e the church :o Christianvo doctrines rristian faith. iems.To say the grounds is lacking or rs only when trine, or any mt or if it en- ,f Christ and that there is . Few would lntradictory. doctrines of s assert and The Incarnation and the Trinity making clear *re logical problems that are said to infect them; I'll then proceed to oudine some responses that Christians can make to show these difficulties can be avoided. It must be noted at the outset that the burden of this chapter is not to provide arguments or reasons for thinking that Jesus Christ is God, and still less to provide evidences for the resurrection. The task of this chapter is to make clear a particular kind of objection to the logical consistency of the Incarnation and the Trinity, and to show how one might go about defending the coherence of these central christological claims. Section I: The Doctrine of the Incarnation What Does the Doctrine Claim? Let's take the doctrine of the Incarnation first. Anyone who ever attended Sunday school knows ttrat Christians claim thatJesus Christ is God's Son. While this claim is fine as far as it goes, it can readily be seen to be inadequate as a complete statement of what we believe about the person of Jesus Christ. The problem with this initial formulation of the Incarnation is that there is a sense in which all believers (indeed, many would say all persons) are children of God, and so for the doctrine to be informative, more must be said. The Deity of Christ !7e begin to get closer to the traditional understanding of the doctrine of the Incarnation if we alter slightly the Sunday school formula to read jesus Christ is God the Son. This is an improvement for a couple of reasons. First, it suggests Christ's uniqueness in a way that the first formulation does not. Second, it says more about who Christ is in a way that explains this uniqueness. For we believe not only that Christ was God's Son; we believe that he was God. And in whatever sense the Christian is willing to affrrm that you and I are "sons and daughters of God"'it is not the same sense in which we affirm that Jesus is the "only begotten Son" of God. As mentioned above, a part of what we mean when we call Jesus "the Son of God" is thatJesus is God, ttrat he is divine. Yet we must tread carefully here. For it turns out that the logic of the claims Jesus Christ is 239 THOMAS D. SENOR God and Jesus Christ is God the Son are rather different, and different in a way that matters, particularly in regards to the doctrine of the Trinit-v which we will discuss later in the chapter. In order to understand the way these claims diverge, one must see that the word "is" is functioning ra*rer differently in them. Philosophers call the "is" in the sentence Jesus Christ is God the Son tfle " 'is' of predication. " This means) essentially, that what is referred to on the left side of the "is" has the property being referred to on the right side of the "is." So The sky is blue, The dog is longhaired, and Mary is kind xe all examples that include an "is" of predication. In each case, the grammatical subject of the sentence refers to an object in the world and the predicate picks out an attribute that the sentence then claims the subject has. In contrast to this is the "is" of identiqv. As it sounds, the role of this "is" is to assert an identity, that is, to claim that there is a single person or object that can be referred to in two ways. For example, in the sentences Batman is Bruce Wayne and The Morning Star is Venus the "is" should be understood as meaning "is the same thing as." The terms "Batrnan" and "Bruce'Wayne" refer to one and the same object as do the terms "Morning Star" and "Venus." With this distinction in hand, let's look again at the basic christological formulae Jesus Christ is God and Jesus Christ is God the Son. These two sentences can now be seen to be making very different, though complementary, claims. In the former sentence, the word "is" should be understood as an "is" of predication. To affirm thatJesus is God is to affirm his deit-v. He was not onl_v human, not only superhuman, but he was and is God in the flesh. On the other hand,Jesus Christ is the Son of God is an identity claim. It asserts that Jesus of Nazareth, ttre son of Mary, is the same person as God the Son, the eternal second person of the divine Trinity. Of course, in identifying Jesus with a divine person, we are implicidy affirming his deity. So there is a sense in which Jesus Christ is the Son of God expresses everl'thing thatJesas Christ is God expresses and then some. The Hurnanity of Christ This understanding of Jesus Christ is the Son of God takes us about half way to an understanding of the doctrine of the Incarnation. Yet traditional Christianity makes a further claim about Jesus. Not only was he the same person as God the Son, he is also a human being - "truly man" in the 240 language c council's I ffie sus C. the sa all thi: his Gr tion, t It is ir value. The only God tl known as t equally herr the flesh, hr The d Christ, a hu The As we've st claim: Jesus that there is It is no been considr that "myster right contra, paradox, an< philosopher mystery can to contradic' contradictior that seems cc inely ei cont by definition 1. As qr InterVarsity Pr lifferent in a the Trinity and fhe way cning rather Jesus Chist ,y, that what g referred to ghaired, and ion. In each rbject in the ntence then : role of this ;le person or le sentences ;" should be iatrnan" and rms "Mornt the basic God the Son. rent, though i" should be God is to af- ., but he was entity claim. le person as r. Of course, ffuming his od expresses s about half :t traditional he the same man" in the The Inrarnation and the Trinitv language of the Chalcedonian Council of a.o. 451. Quoting from the council's Definition of Faith: ffie all unanimously teach that we should confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son; the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and tuly man . . . like us in all things except sin; begonen of the Father before all ages as regards his Godhead and in the last days the same, for us and for our salvatior5 begonen of the Virgin Mary. . . .1 It is important to note here that "truly man" should be taken at face value. The council wanted to adopt a statement that would confirm not only God the Son's bodily existence (as against the heretical Platonic sect known as the Gnostics) but also his complete humaniry (as against the equally heretical Apollinarians who claimed ttrat while Christ was God in the flesh, he was not fully human since he didn't have a human soul). The doctrine of the Incarnation can be summed up as follows: Jesus Christ, a human being, is identical to God the Son. Section II: The Incoherence Obiection to the Incarnation As we've seen, the fundamental christological statement is an identity claim: Jesus Christ is God the Son. As intended, this identity claim entails that there is a person who is fully God and frrlly human. It is no wonder or great secret that the doctrine of the Incarnation has been considered a mystery or even a paradox. Yet there are those who insist that "mystery" or "paradox" is too generous and ttrat the doctrine is downright contradictorl'. \Xtrile to many ears the difference between mystery, paradox, and contradiction might seem negligible or "only semantic," to a philosopher the difference is crucial. The difference is this: a paradox or mystery can be thought of as a statement that seems on the face of it, either to contradict itself or to defy a full or complete explanation. Flowever, a contradiction is not merely something that defies complete explanation or that seems contradictory. Rather, a contradiction is a statement that genuinely zi contradictory. And a contradiction' as any logician will tell you, is by definition a proposition that can't possibly be true. For example, the 1. As quoted in Gerald Bray's Creeds, Councik, and Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 162. 241 THOTMAS D. SENOR proposition This triangle has exactly four inurior angles is contradictory because it makes two claims, each of which is inconsistent with the other: viz.' it asserts This is a triangle arfl Th has exartly four inteior anglcs. Now since "this" in both sentences refers to the same object, and since a triangle is by defrnition an object with exactly three interior angles' This has exactly four interior angks entatls that the same object has exacdy *ree interior angles and exactly four interior angles. But nothing could be like that. Necessaril-v, any object that has exactly four interior angles does not have exactly three interior angles. So the original statement is contradictory and cannot possibly be true. Many critics claim that an exactly similar problem infects the doctrine of the Incarnation. Here's why, in the words of an imaginary christological critic. If Jesus is ..firlly God" then he must have any feature of God that distinguishes God from creatures. Traditional Christian theology claims, for example, that one such feature is God's being the uncreated creator of the universe; being the uncreated creator of every*ring other than the Godhead is thought to be one of the characteristics of divinity. So, then, if Jesus is fulty God, he must be the unqeated creator'Bur Christians also claim thatJesus did not just take on a human body, but that he is "fi,rlly human." Thus, the doctrine of the Incarnation entails that Jesus has all of the properties necessary for being completely human. Now Christians believe that humans are created entities, and it is plausible to think that on the Christian view, being created is a fundamental characteristic of humanitY. So, rhen, if Jesus is fully human, hc must be created. Now the contradiction is clear. For the Christian claims that Jesus is both God and human, and given what is said above, if he has these two natures, then he must be created and uncreated, But that is a contradiction. As bad as all of this is, things get even worse, since the same problem arises for many of the properties that the "God-man" must have' Thke, for example, the pair of propertie s'. being omnipotent and possessing only finite power.The former is required for divinity, the latter for humanity and yet, clearly, no being could have them both. To extend this list, one needs only to consult the table of contents from a text on the traditional Christian conception of God (among those atributes you will find omniscience, atemporality, aspatiatty, necessity, and so forth). Any such property is, allegedly at least' necessary for divinity but incompatible with properties necessary for being human (limited knowledge, temporality, spatiality, and contingency)' 242 Initia The charge c thoughtful res lieve, Christia: there is no dor cognitive powt its completene understand, a.. shall do now i and see what I Let's beg glant that cor uncreated Crea that if the doc we need, then, some consiste Christ zi fully { A First Resl Many Christia sponse ttrat go planation of tl the imaginary teatrnents of t nate GodlJesus man) but is a st the Incarnate t Christ has a cr tures it is, the r tic. So if we sa preexistent we 7 serting is With spect to his diat \7ith this leged contradi contradictions fects the docan imaginary rtradictory bethe other: viz., nglns. ne object, and nterior angles, :ct has exactly nothing could nterior angles il statement is 'God *rat diseology claims, rncreated cre- :ry'thing other istics of divined creator. But :nan body, but rnation entails ompletely hu- :ntities, and it :ated is a funis fully human, the Christian what is said : created and re same probn" must have. xt and possess- , the latter for th. To extend rom a text on ose attributes essity, and so 'y for diviniry rman (limited The Incarnation and. the Trinity Section IfI: Initial Responses to the Contradiction Charge The charge of logicar inconsistency is a serious one thar cails for a thoughtful response. \(rhen confronted with objections ro what we be_ lieve, christians often retreat to slogans about .,divine mystery.,, \xrhile there is no doubt that it is hubris of the first order to suppose that human cognitive powers are sufficient to the task of knowing the ovine nature in its completeness, it is also irresponsible to fai_l ,o ,rr. ,h. gift of intellect to understand, as best we are able, the God who is our *"k... So what we shall do now is tackle straight-on the important objection detailed. above and see what headway can be made. Let's begin by granting our opponent a few of her points. we shall grant that contradictions are necessarily false, that Jesus christ is the uncreated creator and Jesus christ is neated are contradictory and hence that if rhe doctrine of the Incarnation entails them, rhen it is false. \xzhat we need, then, is an account of the Incarnation that anows us to say, with some consistency and, one would hope, plausibility, that while Jesuschrist zi fi:ily God and fully human,he is notborh created and uncreated. A First Response Many Christians, when confronted with this chelenge, offer a line of re_ sponse that goes something as follows. They begin by noting that the ex_planation of the Incarnation with which we've been working, and which the imaginary critic above accepts, is incomprete. In p"rti.Jar, orthodox treatrnents of the Incarnation also include the following claim: The Incar_ nate GodlJesus christ has tz'o distinct, unmingled natures-(one diztine, one hu_ man) but is a singlz person. unlike us (or for that matter) God the Father) the Incarnate God has two natures. As a result, any time we affirm trratchrist has a certain characteristic we must say exacfly which of the na_ tures it is, the divine one or the human one, which ..has,, the characteris_ tic. so if we say, for example, Jesus christ was thirsty or Jesus christ was preexistent we fail to make ourselves clear. $[hat we realry mean to be asserting is with respect to his humanity, Jesus christ was thirsty or with re_ spect to his diainity, Jesus Christ was preexistent. $Zith this in mind, the defender continues, we can see that rhe alleged contradiction (or set of contradictions) described above are nor contradictions at all. For Jesus christ is created and, Jesus christ is 243 TI{OMAS D. SENOR uncreated are each ambiguous. $rhat the traditionar christian really means by them is with respect to his humanity, Jesus christ is created andlvith respect n his diainity, Jesus chist is uncreated. But now we no longer have the simple conradiction. For these properties are attributed to Jesuswith respect to two different natures. compare what the christian says about Jesus with a more ordinary case. consider John, as we shan call him, who is six feet four inches tall and is a professional basketball player.John is arso a member of the sierraclub' At six feet four, John is short when compared with his NBA colleagues. But, of course, he rather stands above the crowd at meetings of the Sierra club. Thus we can say that rvith respect rc NBA prnyers,John is shortwhiTe at the same time aftrrming with respect to s;rrri cirb members, John is ral/ without any fear of contradiction. Norice that if the l.vith re_ spect to. . . clauses were removed, the sentences would be contradictory. However' once clarified, the apparent contradiction vanishes. similarlg the apparent contradiction seen tn Jesus christ is created and, Jesus christis uncreated disappears once the impact of the two-natures "Jp"., of the doctrine of the Incamation is fully appreciated. Why the First Response Is Inadequate Despite its initial attractiveness, the success of this reply is at best dubious.!7hile the traditional understanding of the Incarnarion does distinguish the divine and human natures of God Incarnate, it also insists on the unity of ttreperson, and what's more, on there being t ,ingr" perron who has a[ the attributes or characteristics of God incamate. r?hat ttris means is that even ifthere are properties *rat christ has with respect to his being human and other properties are had with respect to his being divine, the pioperties nevertheless belong to a singre person. For example, if in virnre of being a professor, Richard has an obligation to spend the weekend preparing for his Monday afternoon seminar, and in virtue of being a fathei Richard has an obligation to go on a Boy Scout camp-out with his son, it is nevertheless true tlrai Richard (and not just Richard with respect to being a professor) has an obri-gation to prepare for class and that Richard (and not just Rirhard with respectn being a father) has an obligation to go camping. The conflict here is realand can't be disregarded because they are had in virtue of different roles Richard has. similarly, christ's being uncreated witrr respecr to his divinity and created with respect to his humanity wourdn't appear to change the fact that, on this view, he is both created and uncreated. so the problem-persists. 244 But wh cation" and 1 With respect about him, e would be cor The anr a way that "b ever we asser some group relative, that t and the terrr there are otht son, entail thi ample, if Johr inches tall sin whether a swi or cold is rela same way, the relative prope contradictory nonconradict incoherence c A Second R '$7hat, then, ca when faced w relevant propc But this is pre< diction remain firm bothJeszr in contradictio That dep to say that the tionl since con this key Christ the effect that Christ was crei consider that li nal Christian really Chist is created and ut now we no longer re attributed to Jesus vith a more ordinary feet four inches tall nember of the Sierra t with his NBA colrowd at meetings of NBA phyers,John is Sierra Club rnembers, : that if the With rerld be contradictory. vanishes. Similarly, ned and Jesus Christ .atures aspect of the [y is at best dubious. does distinguish the ts on the unity of ttre who has all the atrineans is that even if ,s being human and ,, the properties nevirtue of being a prord preparing for his rher, Richard has an t is nevertheless true >rofessor) has an oblit Richard with respect conflict here is real :e of different roles ,spect to his divinity rr to change the fact e problem persists. The Incarnation and the Trinity Bur what about the example ofJohn? He is a .,single object of predi_ cation" and yet the sentences with respect to NBA phyers,John is short and,with respect to sie*a crub mernbers,John is talrboth say something true about him, even though, purged of their rvith respect to . . . crauses, they would be contradictory. So what is going on here? The answer is that terms like "short,'and ..tall,, are reratiaeterms in a way that "being created" and "being uncreated creator,, are not. .v7hen_ ever we assert that someone is tall, we (implicitly, at least) have in mind some group with whom we are comparing that person. $rhen a term is relative, that term can apply to a person with respect to a particular group and the term's opposite can apply with respect to another group. But there are other attributes that are not relative and which, if hal by a person, entail that the person does not have the "opposite,, property. For example, if John is six feet four inches teil, he can,t arso be not six feet four inches tall since being of a certain height is not a relative property. Again, whether a swimming poor that is seventy-two degrees Fahrenheit is warm or cold is relative; but its being seuenty-two degrees Fahrenheitis not. In the same way, the properties of being created and of being uncreated are not relative properties. And so the same maneuver that shows that seemingly contradictory sentences which ascribe relative properties to a person are noncontradictory cannot be used to defend the Incarnation against the incoherence charge. So it seems that this solution fails. A Second Response s7har, tJren, can the belever say to the objector? w'en, the first *ring to do when faced w"ith an apparent contradiction is to take a close look at the relevant propositions to make sure that fhey are genuinely contradictory. But t'is is precisely what we just tried, and despite our efforts, the conrradiction remains. \(rhere does ttris leave us? well, it means that we can,t af-firm both je sus christ is neated, and. Jesus christ is uncreatedsince they are in contradiction. Is this a cause for alarm? That depends. lfe have big christological problems if we are forced to say that the doctrine of the Incarnation implicitly harbors a contradic_ tion; since contradictions can't be true, we will then be forced to say that this key christian claim is false. And we have seen a line of reasoning to the effect that the doctrine of the Incarnation entails .both that Jesuschrist was created and that he was uncreated. so what we must do is re_ consider that line of reasoning. 245 THOI\4AS D. SENOR The trouble, of course, is that the line of reasoning looks to be cogent. The argument is that if Jesus Christ is fully God and fi.rlly human, then he must have all of the properties required for divinity and for humaniry. But no one can be God who isn't the creatorl and no one can be human who isn't created. Therefore, if Jesus Christ is fully God and firlly human, then he must be created and uncreated. But that's a contradiction, and since anlthing that leads by sound reasoning to a contradiction is false, the doctrine of the Incarnation is false. Two crucial claims of the above argument are: Being diztine entaik being uncreated and Being human entails being reated.If either of these premises can be shown to be false or even dubious, then the particular obiection we are now considering will have been defused. And if this strategy can be applied elsewhere (e.g., with respect to parallel claims about omnipotence[imited power), we might have the means to resolve the general logical problems thought to infect the doctrine of the Incarnation. More on this shortly. Section IV: The Incarnation Defended Now it is clear enough, I think, that traditional Christian theology commits the Christian to accepting that being uncreated is part of the essence of God. It is impossible that any being should be both God and yet created. For if he is created by another, then he is dependent on the creative activity of that being, and the existence of God can never depend on what another agent does. So I think we must agree with the objector that Jesus Christ is uncreated is a claim the Christian must accept. \(rhat about the other half of the troublesome pair? Must a Christian affirm *rat jesas Christ is created? I think the best argument for Jesus Christ is created is this: Being created or caused to exist by another is part of the very meaning of the terrn human being.'Whrle it is not easy to offer a complete and satisfactory definition of human being, we know that it will include being created, being limited in knowledge and power, being in time and space,etc. So the proposition A human being is createdis what philosophers call "analytic" (meaning that the meaning of the predicate concept is contained in the meaning of the subject concept). On the face of it, this is a strong argument. It certainly must be conceded that if a part of the meaning of being human is being created, then it is impossible for Jesus to be human and be uncreated. So if we are to resist this argur ated is part ol bit, we'll also example, are But can human being ations might ology require ample, that b she might no are broader c for anyone, C ing of being ht interior angks I know r ology commit As we've note and sustained many other b, age of God, s humans shou won't be belit An Intportt At this point Some concep as its content concept bache married.To u: bachehrs are r are all anallti the concepts l of a part of tl Not all concept tiger.. with black stri ing a leg is no tiger that is n: )ks to be cofully human, and for hur one can be iod and frrlly a contradic- :ontradiction Civine entails ofthese preicular objecthis strategy rs about ome the general ution. More eology comf the essence and yet crer the creative ,end on what .or that Jesus ,t a Christian :nt for Jeszs her is pafi of $y to offer a w that it will g in time and philosophers ocept is connust be con- "eated,thenit we are to reThe Incarnation and the Trinity sist tlris argument for Christ's being created, we must deny that being createdis part of the meaning of being human. And, looking down the road a bit, we'll also have to deny that being limited in krnzalcdge and power, for example, are part of its meaning. But can the Christian accepr this (seemingly radical) claim that a human being can be uncreated, unlimited in power, etc.? TWo considerations might make us think not. First, she might think that christian theology requires her to accept these definitional assertions (that is, for example, that being created is part of the concept of being human). Second, she might not think that there are theological constraints but that there are broader constraints of rationality. She might think that it is irrational for anyone, Christian or not, to deny that being created is part of the meaning of being human, iust as it would be irrational to think that possesse s three inteior anghs is not part of the meaning of being triangular. I know of no good reason for thinking that traditional Christian theology commits one to anything at all regarding the meaning of humanity. As we've noted, the Christian will think that humanity was brought about and sustained by the creative power of God, and she'll undoubtedly have many other beliefs about humanity (e.g., that humans are made in the image of God, saved through the death and resurrection of christ and that humans should treat one another as they'd like to be treated), but these won't be beliefs about the.content of the concept. An ltnportant Distinction At this point it will be usefirl to note another philosopher's distinction. Some concepts are called cluster concepts. A cluster concept is one that has as its content other concepts and only other concepts. For example, the concept bachelor includes the concept being male, being aduh, and being unmaried. To use the language of a few paragraphs ago, the propositions lll bachelors are male, All bachelnrs are aduhs, and AII bachelors are unmarried are all analytic. Cluster concepts, then, are exhausted by the content of the concepts they contain. Any analytic proposition will be the unpacking of a part of the cluster of the concept. Not all concepts are cluster concepts. Consider, for example, the concept tiger. A tiger can't be defined, for example, as a four-legged feline with black stripes and a tail indigenous to tropical climes. For a tiger missing a leg is no less a tiger. And zoologists might well discover a species of tiger that is native to deserts or that has no tail. Even if it were to nun out 247 THOMAS D. SENOR that all varieties of tigers ever discovered have tails, it u'ouldn't follow that nothing without a tail could be a tiger. In short, tigers are zoological kinds and questions about what tigers could be like w-hile still being tigers are best left not to the iingUist or philosopher but to the zoologist or biologist. The concept of a tiger is a natural kind concept. Above, I argued that there was nothing in traditional doctrine *rat would require the Christian to say that the concept of humanity includes the concept of being created. But now we can see that not only is ttrere nothing in Christian doctrine that requires this, but that a careful look at the concept humanity makes it clear that it includes nothing of the sort. The reason is that hurnanity is best construed not as a cluster concept, like bachelor,but as a natural kind concept,l)ke tiger. \Thether or not humanity just is a natural kind will be a matter of controvers-v. Argrrabl-v, part of rvhat it is for something to be a natural kind is for it to be the kind of thing whose nature can be understood by the natulal sciencesNow if humans are purely biological creatules, then we are natural kinds. However, if mind,lbody dualism is true and we have immaterial souls, then there will be an important part of human nature that w-ill be outside the domain of the empiricdl natural sciences. Regardless of how this particular issue turns out' once we see that to be human is to be a member of a kind that is intrinsic to the created order and not merely a product of the way our language and concepts have developed (as would seem to be the case rvith cluster concepts lske bachelor and triangle),'"r'e can see that the essence of human nature is not to be determined by philosophers sitting in armchairs and analyzing the meanings of words or concepts. Rather, our theory of human nature (ow philosophical anthropology,as it is sometimes called) will have to be informed by our best science and our basic worldview with which we are working. Applying the Distinction to the Incoherence Objection With this in mind, we can then ask why the Christian should affirm that Jesus Christ is created. The doctrine of the Ingarnation asserts that God the Son was preexistent and took on human nature. Jesus Christ, the human being, is God the Son. That means that Jesus Christ wasn't created. Notice that this is consistent with saying that both Christ's particular human body and the human nature he assumed were created. So there are truths in the near neighborhood but they don't logically imply that Christ was created. And once we see that one can't simply infer Xai createdfrom 248 X is hut gle, thet Christ i. Si involvir powerfi in powe insistinl limited for beli underct T plausib man pr most al thing n Earth. had thir never t born o: know tl Christi ten tho it is an tic is hr not the T commi sential even ir what ir Tu:o l a This s trine o carefu. bllow that ;ical kinds tigers are biologist. )trine that y includes y is there Ll look at 'the sort. tster conter or not Arguably, : the kind :s. Now if Lds. Howruls, fhen rtside the ee that to .ted order , have dee bachelor to be de- :le meantur philocrmed by rrking. ,n, 'firm that that God t, the hut created. cular huthere are .at Christ ztedfrom The Incarnation and the Tiinity x is human in the same way one can infer X is tilinear from X is a tiangle, there is no longer an obvious reason for accepting this that jeszs Christ is created. Similar moves can be made for most of the other logical problems involving the Incarnation. For example, being omnipotent, or maximally powerful, is required for divinity; and it is often thought that being limited in power is necessary for being human. But, again, the primary reason for insisting on this is the mistaken assumprion that by dcfinition a human is limited in power. Once we've seen that this isn't true, the primary reason for beiieving that *ris limitation property is required for being human is undercut. This general reply to the incoherence charge is made even more plausible by noting a useful distinction between common and essentialhuman properties. A conlmen human property is a property that all or almost all humans havel an essentialhuman property is a property that anything must have to be human. Consider the example of being born on Earth. Every human being, we may presume, who has ever existed has had this property. Yet it certainly isn't required for being human: even if it never happens, it is surely possible rhat someday a human baby will be born on a space station or on the moon. If this is even possibre, then we know that having a terrestrial birth is not essential for being human. The christian can plausibly maintain that the limitation properties that are often thought to be essential to human nature are rather only common. And it is an easy mistake to think that because a given property or characteristic is had by every human then it is essential for being human. But such is not the case. The underlying idea is that while the Christian, as a Christian, is committed to the truth of certain claims about God and about what is essential for diviniry she is under no such pressure) as a christian or as even just as a rational, educated person) to make general claims about what is essential or required for being human. Tu:o Pitfolls to Be Aooided a. Pitfall One: "In Every Way Like LIs . . ." This strategy does well in getring around the logical difficulties the doctrine of the Incarnation is said to have. However, the christian must tread carefully here. For even if the reply we've been articulating allows her to 249 THOMAS D. SENOR affirm an orthodox christology without the *reat of logical inconsistency, she must be carefirl to avoid two further pidalls: first, she might have cause to worry that the model of the Incarnation we now have is one that stresses the diviniry at the expense of the humanity of Christ. The concept of humanitv is the one that rve found to have suitable flexibility, and so the properties that are in logical tension with the properties of divinity were compromised. The potential problem, then, is that while the malleability that we found in the concept of humanfiy might allow us to affirm the divinity and humanity of Christ, we might end up with an account of the Incamation in which the Incarnate God's ability to share our condition, to "know it from the inside" as it were, is seriously imperiled. For example, if Jesus had the omniscient mind of God, we might wonder in what sense his humanity was anything like ours. After all' whatever exactly the divine mental life is like, it's a safe bet that it is strikingly different than ours. Besides, we must be careful not to fall into the heresy of Apollinarius, viz., that Jesus was the divine soul in a human body. To be firlly human requires having not iust a human body but a human mind as well. So we must affirm both that Christ was omniscient and that he had the mind of a human. b. Pitfall Two: "I Know Not the Day or the Hour . . ." The second pitfall to be avoided is that of incompatibiiity with the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ. The Gospels themselves portray Christ as claiming that he doesn't know the date of the Second Coming, that it is known only to the Father.2 Yet omniscience, by definition, requires knowing everything there is to know. So it would seem that the strategy discussed above won't work where God the Son's knowledge is concerned. Tbto Strategies for Aooiding the Pitfalls a. Kenoticism There are two options open to the Christian to meet these concerns. The first of these is actually a more general strategy for dealing with the incoherence charge. There is a theological tradition known as kenoticism that takes its name from the Greek word kenoszs, which means "self2. Matthew 24:36. 250 emptyj Philipp tion in tricky r second tain fe those t charac would missior A The cl many ( God? ( these d orthod the pre The cl her vie vine. S kenoti< objecti b The se tribute divine edge o contair that pJ minds ably, tt instan< exercis Atoncmt Dame { as this i srstency, ;ht have one that -he conlity, and 'divinity : malleao affirm :ount of r condiled. For rnder in 3ver exy differeresy of ,. To be mind as : he had Gospel lhrist as hat it is s know- :gy discerned. ns. The Le incosm thal "selfThe Incarrwtion and the Tiinity emptying." The scriptural staning point for this view can be found at Philippians 2:5-17 where Christ is said to have given up his divine position in order to take on our nature. A kenotic theology would handle the tricky matters we are now considering by maintaining that the preexistent second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, gave up his position and certain features of divine existence in order to take on humanity. Among those things he emptied himself of was his omniscience. And any other characteristic that would have prevented him from living fi-rlly human life would have also been surrendered, at least for the duration of his earthly mission. Although the kenotic strategy is attractive, it is also problematic. The chief difficulty is this: if God the Son giztes up or empties himself of many of the divine attributes, how can we continue to hold that he is fully God? On the contrar.v, it appears that in giving up or emptying himself of these divine qualities he giaes up his diviniry. Remember that christological orthodoxy requires not only that we say that Jesus Christ is identical to the preexistent God the Son, but that he is fully God as well as fully man. The chief concern for the kenoticist is to demonstrate the consistency of her view with the claim that during his earthly ministry,Jesus was fully divine. Still, there is something initially attractive and plausible about the kenotic position and one must not underestimate its potential to answer objections such as this.3 b. The Two-Minds View The second way of avoiding the aforementioned pair of pitfalls is to attribute to the Incarnate God two minds, one human and one divine. The divine mind is omniscient, while the human mind contains limited knowledge of the sort corunon to first-century Jews (and it might also have contained false beliefs that would have been typical of humans living in that place and time). Similarly, one might eschew talk of two distinct minds and attempt to model Christ's knowledge after his power. Presumably, the Incarnate Christ possessed the omnipotence of God but, in most instances, refrained from exercising more power than would have been exercised by an average human. In the s€une way, it can be suggested that 3. In his essay "Reconsidering Kenodc Christology" (tn Tiinity,Incarnation and Atonzment, ed. Ronald J. Feensua and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. [Noue Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 19891, 128-52), Ronald J. Feenstra considers obiections such as this and tries to show ttrat kenoticism has the resources to answer them. 25t THOMAS D. SENOR his taking on humanity, including a human mind, required the masking of his divine knowledge. Just as contemporary psychology suggests that much of what goes on in the human mind goes on below the conscious surface, one might suppose that taking on humanity required Christ's consciousness to be similar to ours but that below the conscious surface there existed the omniscient mind of God. Of course, this wouldn't mean that Jesus was limited to only the contents of his human mind. For God the Father could have chosen to allow the earthly mind to have more or less access to the contents of the divine mind, as might be necessary for completion of his ministry on earth.a I am aware of how presumptuous all of this can sound. Who are you, one might as\ to pretend to know these sorts of facts about the Incarnation? My defense is this: I am not maintaining thatl know that these claims about the cognitive features of the Incarnation are true) nor even that I am justified in believing them. But why then, one might wonder, are we doing this? Here it is helpful to remind ourselves about what it is we are doing here. An objector has argued that the Incarnation is incoherent. Above, I have sketched out some of the responses that have been defended by Christian philosophers recently. Some of these accounts seem to be open to theological objections. In response to these I have set out a model which shows us how we might conceive of the Incarnation. I don't claim to know that this model is true. I do claim, however, that (i) it is consistent with our general strategy for dealing with the logical problems the doctrine of the Incarnation allegedly possesses, (ii) it is consistent with the full humanity of Christ and the biblical record, and (iii) we have no good reason to think it is false. I am making no claims to have demonstrably prwen anything; I maintain only that the reply I've given to the logical incoherence objection is sufficient to blunt the charge as stated. The ball is back in the objector's court. Section V: The Doctrine of the Triniw It is not possible to have a deep or even adequate understanding of the Incarnation without having some conception of the docrrine of the Trinity. 4. Thomas V. Morris has defended the "nvo minds" view of the Incarnation in chapter six of his book, The Logic of God Incarnau (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986). 252 'We've l to God tioned, the Son lematic more sI o Trinity culty w and yet doctrin, and ont than ui persons Holy 51 w discuss its cont and Go, It and cur since tlr doctrinr now to the Trir In man readily lowing Holy 51 that a c mother ing thre is Susar Si Trinity, <ing of :s that .scious lhrist's urface . mean r God ore or try for :lo are he In- : these r even er) are .iswe rerent. :n de- , seem .outa don't i) it is blems ;istent : have :monto the itated. he Inrinity. tion in Press, The Incarnation and the Trinitv We've seen that the former doctrine asserts that Jesus Christ is identical to God the Son. But who is *tat? Although this hasn't yet been mentioned, there is a terrific difference between the claims Jesus Christ is God the Son and Jesus Christ is God. S7e will see later why the latter is problematic. For now, though, simply note that the former makes a rather more specific kind of claim, a claim about God the Son. Oversimplifying a bit, we can say for starters that the doctrine of the Trinity is the claim rhat God is three persons and yet one. An initial difficulty with this formulation is that it invites the reading that God is one and yet itree of the same thing. But that is not the genuine content of the doctrine. Rather, the naditional understanding is that God is three persons and one substance. Christians maintain that they are monotheists (rather than tri-theists) because they assert a single divine substance. The three persons of the Trinity are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Ire wiil have to say more about the content of this doctrine as we discuss the puzzles it generates, but for a second pass we can characterize its content as'. The Godhead is three persons (God the Father, God the Son, and God the HoIy Spirit) and yet a single substance. It might go without saying that this has been an exceedingly quick and cursory description of a complex and much-debated doctrine. But since this chapter is primarily about the logical issues generated by these doctrines, it has been necessary to keep the discussion brief. 'We move now to a consideration of the logical difficulties raised by the doctrine of the Trinity. Section VI: The Incoherence Obiection to the Trinity In many ways, the logical oddity of the doctrine of the Trinity is more readily apparent. Superficially, it looks like the Christian makes the following set of claims about God: The Father is God, Thc Son is God, The HoIy Spirit is God. This, by itself, doesn't cause problems. For suppose rhat a certain person) Susan' is (a) the oldest daughter of Millie, (b) the mofher of Calvin, and (c) *re wife of Tim. !7e can then assert the following tlrree things: The oldest daughter of Millie is Susan, The mother of Calain is Susan, and The wife of Tim is Susan' Since it looks like we might apply a similar strategy in the case of the Trinity, one might wonder what the problem is. It will begin to become 253 THOMAS D. SENOR clear if you think for a minute about what follows from these three claims about Susan (we will call these the "Susan triad"). If the three statements composing the Susan triad are true, then the oldest daughter of Millie is the wife of Tim and the mother of Calvin is the oldest daughter of Millie. (Math enthusiasts can note that the "transitivity of identity" is what allows us to draw these inferences.) The problem with the trinitarian triad is that they represent only a part of what the Christian says about the Godhead. In addition, she insists that the Father and Son are not idcntical the Son and the Spirit are not idcntical, and that the Father and the Spirit are not idcntical. It appears to be just as if one were to grant that Susan is the mother of Calvin and that Susan is the wife of Tim but then deny that the mother of Calvin is identical to (i.e., is the same person as) the wife of Tim. Inasmuch as that would be contradictory, the critic assefts, so is it contadictory to make the trinitarian claims above but deny the identity of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Section VII: Responding to the Trinitarian Critic The logical issues surrounding the Incarnation and those surrounding the Trinity are different enough that the response we've offered to the critic of the Incarnation will not work here. As we have seen, the problem is that the Christian makes a set of claims which apparently imply that the Father, Son, and Spirit are identical. However, the orthodox understanding of the Trinity denies the identity of the persons while insisting that the three are yet "one God." So the trick is to find a way of explaining the doctrine that keeps the three persons distinct while maintaining the unity of the Godhead. The Heretical Extremes: Modalisrn and Trithei.sn A good way to begin this discussion is to get a clear view of just what a fine line it is ttre Christian theologian must follow if she wants to walk the straight and narrow of trinitarian orthodoxy. This can be seen by considering a couple kinds of explanation of the Tiinity thar were labeled as heresies by early Church councils. First, consider modalism. The modalist explained the Trinity by stressing the underlying unity or oneness of God. The Father, Son, and Spirit, the modalist claims, correspond to different 254 modes this vir is onll demnr ism, it 7 tritheit the un I Tiinit: predic ther is been t: follow thing t this trc The H, senten consec the wa entail l s is to n< and Tl the "is ing ou Spirit more f ther is t I lem sa Son, a. tue of stated since t and th \ SCCInS one fal Godhe claims ements 4illie is Millie. 'hat aln triad )ut the entical, : Spirit usan is ny that wife of so is it rtity of ng the : critic set of denti- ,idenSo the e peruhat a .lk the lnsids her- .st exGod. ferent The Incarnation and the Tiinity modes or manifestations of the divine. The lncarnate God the Son, on this view, is the same being and person as God the Father. The difference is only in the way that he has manifested himself. This view was condemned as heresy because, while it clearly avoided the charge of polytheism, it failed to do justice to the plurality of persons. The ditch on the other side of the narrow path of orthodoxy is yitheism. A view that stresses the diversity of persons at the expense of the unity of the Godhead will be in danger of polytheism' Recall that in our initial discussion of docnines of the Incarnation and Trinity, we made a distinction between the "is" of identity and the "is" of predication. If we now think back to the initial trinitarian triad (i.e., Thc Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God) , we can see *tat we have been treating these claims as identity statements. And from this it seems to follow ttrat the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all the same person (something the doctrine of the Trinity forces us to deny). Notice, however, that *ris troubling consequence follows from the statements Thp Son is God and Tlw Holy Spirit is Godthat The Son is the Holy Spirit ottly if the "is" in these sentences is read as signi$ing identity. $7e can easily see *rat the same bad consequence does not follow if these are "predication" Statements, in just the way we can see that John is human and Grahnm is human don't together entail that John and Graham are the same person. So the first point of clarifrcation that the Christian apologist will make is to note that the relevant sentences (i.e., The Father is God' Tfu Son is God, and Thc Holy Spirit is GoA do not, as one might have first thought, include the "is" of identity but merely the "is" of predication. Another way of stating our trinitarian triad is The Father is divine, The Son is diaine, Thp Holy Spiit is dfuine. This adjustrnent resolves the logical difficulties for it no more follows from, say, The Son is God artd The Father is Godthat The Father is thp Soz than it follows from the earlier example thatJohn is Graham. It would be premature, however, to think that this resolves the problem satisfactorily. Here's the reason: for all we've said so far, the Father' Son, and Spirit are no more one than are any three human beings in virtue of ttreir corunon humanity. That is to say, if we leave things as we've stated them, we may seem to have fallen prey to the heresy of tritheism since the only sense in which the three are one is that they are each divine, and that is a very thin sense of oneness. '!(i'e can now get a sense of the trickiness of this doctrine. For it seems that to the extent that the distinctness of divine persons is stressed, one falls into tritheism. On the other hand, emphasis on the unity of the Godhead threatens to bring with it the heresy of modalism. 255 THOMAS D. SENOR Before saying more about how the Trinity might be understood in a way that avoids at least the deepest parts of both ditches, let,s make a rather simple, straightforward logical point. Indeed, this rough-and-ready response has been hinted at before, but it is time to make it fully explicit. one sometimes hears the objection to the Trinity that we've been considering in a far more basic form, to wit: christians say that God is three and yet one. But nothing can be both three things and exactly one thing that is logically incoherent. Sothe doctrine of the Trinity is logically incoherent. To this objection, there is a quick and easy sorution. when the creeds say that God is three and yet one, they should not be understood as asserting that God is three and one of the same thing.That would be contradictory and obviously so. Rather, what is being claimed is that there is an important unity in the Godhead as well as plurality. Suppose you go into a store to buy some soft drinks for your family. uThen you return, the kids say, "How many did you get?,'you respond, "Six cokes; one six-pack." There is a perfectly clear sense in which what you bought was "six and yet one." Even so, it is clear that if we said that you had bought exactly six and exactly one of the same thing, we'd be saying something foolish and contradictory. what you bought was one six-pack and six cans of soda. Fortunately for the sake of orthodoxy, the traditional understanding of the Trinity recognizes the point we are making. As we've seen earlier, the docuine asserts that there are three persons and one substance,not that there are three Gods and exactly one God. So it is not open to the simple and common objection of blatant inconsistency. still, it cannot be doubted that, as traditionally undersrood, the creed asserts both a trinity of persons and a fundamental unity, one that makes the charge of tritheism a misunderstanding. so we need some kind of account of divine oneness that allows for a pluralitv of persons but which provides an underlying unity. A Thinitarian Modet: plurality in Unity Here is a way of understanding the Trinity which seems to capture what is essential to the claim of the unity of the Godhead while permiming three distinct persons to dwell therein. It should be kept in mind that I am 256 not offeri with almc doctrine r priate, sin and it wor were capa ing this m God as ". anlthing I ence of th< cording tr Pluralitj Let's begi ther, Son, three cent Godhead. nal. Also, i sary for d, But i one in the human. W would be . In Unity Many Chr trine of tl among the have been The relatic nal generat 5.Ah other doctri ogy: An Intr, chapter 8. tood in a , make a rd-ready xplicit. 've been , be both :rent. So eeds say rsserting adictory r imporr family'. 'espond, ch what ;aid that wed be d/as one ,tanding l earlier, not that : simple ,od, t]le rne that ne kind ons but re what mitting tatlam The Incarnation an"d tfu TiinitY not offering the following as a model I am convinced is tr1e. I believe, with almost everyone else who has ever thought about the mattel' that the doctrine of the Trinity is deeply mysterious. And that seems fully appropriate, since this docUine concerns the metaphysics of the nature of God and it would be hubris of the highest degree for us to suppose our minds were capable of understanding the divine essence. The point in our offering this model is to indicate that good sense can be made of the notion of GOd aS "three in one." W'hile I have no wish to attempt to demonstrate anything about the nature of the Godhead, I do want to defend tl:re coherence of the doctrine and one way of doing that is by offering a model according to which it can be understood. Plurality Let's begin with the plurality. There are three persons in the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As three persons, we presrune that there are tltree centers of will and cognition. Each has a distinct function within the Godhead. Being divine, none of the three persons is created; all are eternal. Also, because of his divinity, each person has all the attributes necessary for deity. But in what sense are the three one? It is not enough that they are one in the same way that three humans are one in virtue of their all being human. !flere this all the divine oneness comes to, the charge of tritheism would be legitimate. In Unity Many Chr.istians are unaware of the fact that part of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity includes the claim that there are centrd relations among the members of the Trinity.s Some of the traditional ways that have been suggested for seeing the divine Trinity as one are the following. The relationship between the Father and the Son is said to be one of eternal generation. Eternal because there is no temporal priority; the Father 5. A helpful introducrory discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity (and many otler docrines of interest) can be found in Alister E. McGrath's Christian Theology: An Introduction,2nd ed. (cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing co.' 1991)' chapter 8. 257 THOMAS D. SENOR did not exist before the Son. Each is coeternal. Generation is also a rerrn carefrrlly chosen. Historically, the use of this term was to insist that the Son is the same kind of being (i.e., divine) as the Father, as against those who claimed that the Son or "Logos" (the term of choice for some early theologians) was created, which would have implied ttrat he was of a different kind than the Father. The Holy spirit is said to proceed from the Father and the son, once again to insist that the Spirit,like the Father and the son, is eternal and divine.6 rfhat is important to note here is that while there are three coeternal divine Persons, tiese Persons are said to bear fundamental menphysical ties to each other, much closer ties than those held between member of the same species. For example, the idea of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father suggests an atemporal process, or at least an eternal process underlying the being of the Son at every moment. The procession of the spirit from the Father and son together has the same implications. So one fundamental difference is apparently this: rhe Farher, Son, and Spirit are ontologically united. The existence of any of these persons is logically sufficient for the existence of all three. put another way, the unity of the Trinity is grounded in necessary relations between the three persons. This means that it is simply not possible for one of the three to exist independently from the other two. such strong relations between members of the Trinity are certainly not found between any created beings. For even though, at least on certain plausible views, the existence of Mary requires the prior existence of Mary's parents (that is, it is essential to Mary that she be born of her parents rather than any two other people), she is nevertheless quite capable of continuing to exist after their deaths. So one way in which the relation of the persons of the Trinity is tighter than the relation of humans to each other is that the existence of any one divine person is impossible without the existence of the other two. still, one might think that this amounts only to claiming that the three are in some way mutually dependent, but not that they are in any significant way one. Yet more can be said regarding their unity. And to see this, let's consider an objection to something I've said so far. Trad.itional christian theology claims that each of the persons of the Trinity is divine, i.e., each has 6This is so according to the traditional creeds of lpestern christendom. According to the Eastem church, the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. 258 the nip om bei the tha cor Br' Xc abc Ne Th alle har tha cou CSSI fun im: po! clo ery Ste the (wl wh war Th Tii of, onl this the abc erm the 10se :arly dif- )nce and rnal sical :f Of 'the rnal sion ns. ion, ions the 1ree eto /een beeof rtial )eoheir yis eof rher the any :onrhehas AcThe Incarnation and the Trinity the properties necessary for being God. But that means that each is omnipotent. Yet, how, it might be asked, could there exist more than one ornrdpotent being? For to be omnipotent requires, among other tfiings' being at least as powerfirl as anlthing else that exists. Suppose, then' that there are two omnipotent beings, A and B, and that A plans to see to it that a certain event, X, comes to pass and B plans to see to it that X not come to pass. Now, either X will come to pass or it won't. If it does, then B, who anempted to prevent X, is not omnipotent. on the other hand, if X doesn,t come to pass, then A, who attempted to make sure that X came about, is not omnipotent. So perhaps talk about more than one omnipotent person is logically inconsistent. N eces s ariljt H arnt onious Wills This difficulty depends upon the "coming apart" of the wills of the rwo allegedly omnipotent beings. Suppose, however, that these two beings have necessarily harmonious wills. To have wills like this requires not only *rat these beings never in fact have a conflict of will, but that they never could haae a conflict of wilk.This isn't to say that their wills are always necessarily the same. To have harmonious wills requires oniy that there are fundamental areas of agreement of will and no areas of disagreement. So imagine a couple, Steve and Jenny. They both will to have a child. Suppose that Jenny doesn't care much about the style of their chjld's hair or clothes. But she does care about the layout and organization of the nursery and that the baby be breast-fed for the first four months of her life. Steve, on the other hand, doesnlt have any real views on breast-feeding or tle nursery but is quite panicular about the child's wardrobe and hair (when she gets some, that is). Now, the situation I've described is one in which two people have harmonious wills. For there is overlap (they both wanted to have a child) and there are no areas of disagreement. Still, Steve's andJenny's wills are harmonious, but not necessarily so. They can and will have their con{licts. But the suggestion regarding the Trinity is that their wills are necessarily aligned so that there is no chance of disagreement. This isn't to say' though, that their wills are identical, only that there is fundamental agreement and a lack of conJlict' Now if this were necessarily so, if it is impossible that disagreement arise, then the argument against more than one omnipotent being that we considered above, is inelevant, depending as it does on conllict of will' So the christian can offer a model of the Trinity according to which 259 THOMAS D, SENOR there are three persons, each having a will, power, and firll-range of cognitive faculties, but which also emphasizes necessary relations between them, of being and of will, in which their unity consists. This model, or ones like it, have been labeled by some "social trinitarianism" as it seems to emphasize the triune nature rather than the unity of the Trinity. It should be noted, however, that the christian who accepts a moder similar to that sketched above should not be taken as insisting that that is c// the unity of the three persons consists in. Rather, she should be understood as claiming that it is at lcast that. The sort of unity that the social trinitarian model suggests is surely significant, but the three may be related in ways that we've yet to conceive. Section VIII: Conclusion I have not been tr)'lng to take away the sense of mystery that accompanies these important christian doctrines. I believe these doctrines to express truths of such a high order that our minds will certainly never caprure them this side of eternity and may never clearly see them even when we are no longer looking through a glass darkly. !7hat I have attempted to dispel is not mystery but only the charge of logical inconsistency. so I end with the reminder that my only claim for the models of the Incarnation and the Tiinity that I have been sketching here is that they are not logically contradictory and they are in general agreement with the historical understandings of these fundamental doctrines of the church. 260 B dl m Those resurre Creed the wor cominE and dir resurre to the death < -I trine. ( was cr( God g