Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here.
I began the discussion on the Trinity with more traditional viewpoints—of James Attebury and James White—for a reason. They all share intellectual, non-mystical approaches to the question of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Today I’m going to contrast that with the supposed “mystical” perspective of Bruce Charlton.
Charlton is not a traditionalist, and yet he ultimately agrees (as do I) with the traditional viewpoint that the Trinity’s formulation is not a matter of reason. But, Charlton isn’t your standard run-of-the-mill mystic either:
According to most definitions, the mystical vision and experience is about the mystic attaining first a vision of the oneness of everything – that all divisions and distinctions, including time, are illusory; and then attaining a personal unity with that oneness.
…
[T]he ‘evidence’ of ‘oneness’ in mystical experience is understood in terms of prior assumptions. If the prior assumption is of oneness, then this type of experience is regarded as evidence of oneness. But if one is a pluralist, like myself – who believes that time is a fundamental; the mystical experience of oneness is interpreted in light of those qualitatively-different assumptions.…
[T]he experience of oneness is – in the first place – not a proof of oneness; and in the second place that oneness is an incoherent belief. The incoherence of oneness can be, and is, explained on the basis of further assumptions being introduced – but all of these contradict the prima assumption of oneness – therefore I argue that oneness is incoherent and disproves-itself.The same also applies to mainstream/ orthodox/ Athanasian Trinitarian Christianity; which tries to argues simultaneous oneness and plurality. Insofar as the Trinity is taken to be one and every-thing, it is also incoherent and self-refuting; and attempts to cover this by asserting simultaneous plurality are also covert introduction of further unacknowledged assumptions.
Throughout this series we’ve shown how the traditional formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is logically incoherent and irrational, but Charlton argues that it is also metaphysically incoherent.
In another article, he notes the following:
This is one of the most bizarre of all my experiences since I became a Christian – to discover that (supposedly) all Christians believe that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus.
On one hand, those who have read my analysis of James White will not be surprised by this, as this argument was central to the argument he made in his book on the Trinity. On the other hand, I also noted that a sizable majority of Christians cannot describe the Trinity without dipping into a heretical analogy or two. Few Christians truly know and understand what they supposedly believe, which leads to the obvious question: do they really believe it?
Most Christians are monists and trace all causes back to one God.
This leads to a problem when considering Jesus and the Holy Trinity in general. Is Jesus an uncaused cause, or not? If so, then God is two; if not then Jesus is just an aspect of God: inessential. This problem has not been solved by monism (only obscured by sleight of language).
Monism also leads to the problem that humans have no free will, since all causes are traced back to God. Insofar that Jesus is essential to our salvation, and insofar as free will is essential to Christianity, then monism is deficient.
Pluralists like me believe there are more-than-one/ many uncaused causes; so Jesus and the Trinity is not a problem – Father, son and Holy ghost are all uncaused causes; and free will is not a problem (since each humans is an uncaused cause).
It has always been extremely difficult (I would say impossible) for Christians satisfactorily to accommodate the primary and essential reality of Jesus Christ within monism in a manner which is comprehensible or meaningful.
The only widely acceptable answer has been to declare the whole thing a mystery, expressible only in self-contradictory/ paradoxical language (e. the mainstream dogmatic linguistic formulations regarding the Trinity). But in terms of philosophy or common-sense this is no answer at all, but an evasion positioned at the very heart of Christianity.
Who would have thought that the traditional doctrine of the Trinity caused so many philosophical and metaphysical problems? It becomes quite clear why pastors, priests, and popes have almost universally just said to believe it without questioning it (or, for that matter, even attempting to understand it).
Fundamentally, then, we have a situation where one of the most core doctrines at the heart of Christianity is, essentially, a meaningless evasion. Men like James White or (the allegedly discredited) Ravi Zacharias are quick to point out how the “unity of the Trinity” is of primary theological importance, but there is no way to remove these claims from logically begging-the-question.
The fact of the matter is this: if someone becomes a Monotheist Unitarian (the view that Jesus was not God at his birth, i.e. not incarnated), the traditional Trinitarian has no rational justification to condemn the Unitarian. The judgment is entirely—and I do mean entirely without exception—based on blind acceptance of a specific faith tradition. This is “fine” for the Orthodox or Roman Catholic, but it’s a curious (and probably contradictory) thing to do for Protestants, as I noted long ago in “The Trinity and the Protestants.”
I think Charlton summarizes all of this better than any formulation I’ve seen elsewhere:
The tough question is that if Christians claim that there is one God, how can Jesus also be fully divine? Surely that is at least two Gods? And then, what about the Holy Ghost?…
And if Jesus is God, how can he be a Man? If he is a Man, how can he be God? Such obvious questions arose very early in the history of Christianity.
The ‘answer’ is a bunch of soothing abstractions or incantations, with the actual effect of hypnotizing the problem away – by restating the problem as a mystery of three in one, and one in three etc. This is an explanation that is not an explanation at all – it is to answer an easy question with an impossibly difficult answer.
Yet, after 2000 years, this is become a creedal matter, a necessary article of faith; something that is supposed to have been a decisive and final clarification of a problem so obvious a child can see it.
There is a sense that Christians hope that the problem will go-away if they declare it solved – and for many centuries this was actually true. Christianity held-together, despite the feeble answers…
But it is not true now.
Without the need to go to proof texts or engage in lengthy debate, this quotation is very nearly a complete summary of the status of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Before the worldwide government imposition of “lockdowns” in 2020, the Christian church as a whole had coasted on its tradition. But then the governments around the world told churches to close their doors and every major (and most minor) Christian denomination acquiesced.
So, most Christians (for 2000 years) have done this kind of thing all the time – resorting to abstraction and ignorance – and about some of the most fundamental matters of faith.
And this is another deep and debilitating weakness of Christianity – which I am sure has contributed to the catastrophic collapse of the past 18 months (i.e. the worst and most rapid reversal of institutional Christianity since its foundation – and if you have not noticed this, then you are in deep trouble).
It has become very obvious that most ‘Christians’ do not believe what they say they believe; and have actually abandoned their faith…
By contrast, these same ‘Christians’ are utterly credulous-of, slavishly obedient-to and defensive-concerning… whatever latest lying garbage is being spouted by government officials, advertisers and the mass media.
But Christianity is true and real, and there are clear and simple answers to all the tough and simple questions. But none of the churches will tell you this – and certainly no other institutions will do so. Indeed you will need to work the answers out for your-self – because why should you – how should you – trust anybody else in such times?
It is the sad fact that when the flock is conditioned to accept something that, by its very formulation, is false—a logical contradiction—then the flock will not be equipped to discern what is true and real.
I’m actually surprised that it’s taken so many centuries before this inherent relativism within traditional Christianity revealed itself so clearly and plainly in a broad, global, unambiguous way. What doesn’t surprise me is that it comes at a time when “mystical Christianity” is more popular than it ever has been. The fruit of “blind faith” and subjective personal mystical experience has revealed itself for what it is.
But as I noted in “Too Slow To React In Time,” this is how Satanic infiltration works best. Who is going to blame an ancient irrational doctrine—introduced roughly 1700 years ago—for the failure of today’s church to rationally sort fact from fiction? Certainly not the men in the Manosphere! Such a change simply went to slowly for it to be the correct explanation.
In the New Testament, the ancient church was lauded and praised for using its mind and the intellectual capacity that God gave them. Jesus himself commanded that the love of God incorporate reason and critical thinking using the mind! Yet, over time this was replaced by slavish, unthinking obedience to (somewhat paradoxically) both tradition—including hierarchical authority—and doctrinal innovation. This, in turn, led to susceptibility to esoteric mystical experience replacing the Word of God.
For mainstream/ orthodox/ traditional Christian theology; contradictions are fundamental and unavoidable – therefore paradoxical mysticism is necessarily the bottom-line “explanation” when it comes to reconciling The World with Ultimate Reality.
The question for each Christian is whether or not he is happy with having his religion rooted in paradoxical mysticism?
The point of this series is to ask precisely this question. As we have seen—and will continue to see—Rational apologetics-minded Christians are not at all happy with the fact that their religion is rooted in paradoxical mysticism. So uncomfortable are they, that they deny the paradox and/or the mysticism. But their denial changes nothing about the reality of the situation. At the same time, many Christians have found a home in mysticism.
But as I noted in “Too Slow To React In Time,” this is how Satanic infiltration works best. Who is going to blame an ancient irrational doctrine—introduced roughly 1700 years ago—for the failure of today’s church to rationally sort fact from fiction? Certainly not the men in the Manosphere! Such a change simply went to slowly for it to be the correct explanation.
Evolution CANNOT Explain THREE Things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQnXrMZsD2E
The Will Spencer Podcast
Members first on January 10, 2025 #entropy #naturalselection #christianity
The worldview behind Darwin’s theory of evolution has three big aspects of reality that it can’t explain. It even violates natural laws!
In this video I break down those aspects of reality, and I explain why these basic oversights are fatal to the atheist-materialist religion that Darwin’s theory supports.
This is similar to when ”RP Geniuses” couldn’t understand ArchAngel’s rejection of Rollo’s ”Opportunistic love’ ‘ concept even though these same ”RP Geniuses” supposedly believe this from the NT:
”4 Love endures long and is patient and kind; love never is envious nor boils over with jealousy, is not boastful or vainglorious, does not display itself haughtily.
5 It is not conceited (arrogant and inflated with pride); it is not rude (unmannerly) and does not act unbecomingly. Love (God’s love in us) does not insist on its own rights or its own way, for it is not self-seeking; it is not touchy or fretful or resentful; it takes no account of the evil done to it [it pays no attention to a suffered wrong].
6 It does not rejoice at injustice and unrighteousness, but rejoices when right and truth prevail.
7 Love bears up under anything and everything that comes, is ever ready to believe the best of every person, its hopes are fadeless under all circumstances, and it endures everything [without weakening].
8 Love never fails [never fades out or becomes obsolete or comes to an end]. As for prophecy ([a]the gift of interpreting the divine will and purpose), it will be fulfilled and pass away; as for tongues, they will be destroyed and cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away [it will lose its value and be superseded by truth].”-1 Corinthians 13:4-8. Amplified Bible, Classic Edition
& yet the ”RP Geniuses” still didn’t know what AA’S, DEREK’s” and even my own problem with the quote ”Opportunistic love” concept/ meaning was even from an ”English Teacher” who ”don’t care about money, or popularity, or fitting in.”-even though he makes ”Performance” posts every year! But since most of his audience and commenters have followed his last remaining popular commenter(yeah Sparkly i know Jack told you in early December to stop commenting for a while as people complained about you again) to a certain other site-I suspect the last one will be the last one indeed.
Or the same guy who ”tends to be too formal, too cerebral, too structured, and I have difficulty with empathy. I’ve had a habit of bossing people around. I started a gang in middle school that was so disruptive that it eventually got me transferred to another school. I’ve even told my bosses what to do and how to be a better boss. (as he failously did to i at Spawnys almost 3 years ago and Derek here some months back)” will just blame i and Derek again in a post next year instead of taking full responsibility for his own failures he, like a wimminz blames MEN who actually get it done unlike themselves who are too busy goofing off!
I will be interested to see where you go with this.
My general theological views only began to stabilize in 2013-14; but continue to develop as problems arise.
For instance, my conviction that the Holy Ghost is the ascended Jesus Christ only emerged after I did my intensive and repeated reading of the Fourth Gospel in 2018 – and realized that this equation made simple and coherent sense of what had been vague and mysterious.
My understanding of what works and is acceptable is nowadays strongly influenced by the Steiner/ Barfield – but also common sensical – idea of “development of consciousness. That people were on average different in the past, and have changed inwardly and purposively (by divine will) in a fashion analogous to the development of an individual human being growing up – i.e. not just changing passively in response to their environment, but also by an inner developmental pattern.
This means that mystical fudges, such as the traditional paradoxes of The Trinity (or the nature of Christ) – were acceptable and workable for most people most of the time in the past – but not any more.
(Although the rise and triumph of purely-monotheistic Islam in the Christian heartlands, is presumably evidence that even early on, *many* were not happy with the top-down imposed Athanesian paradoxes, even at the time. Plus the Monophysite/ “Oriental Orthodox” had already schism-ed in disputes over the nature of Christ.)
In the past most people were necessarily immersed unconsciously in the world into which they were born, and could not wholly separate their own minds from the group mind. But Modern Man is (like it or not) factually alienated, and consciously cut off from the world, and himself.
One consequence of which is that incoherent theology is now inescapable, and lethal. It so weakens faith that the religious lack the courage to dissent from the labile impositions of the totalitarian materialist System – even privately in their own minds!
“I will be interested to see where you go with this.”
I’m finding your recent blog posts to be well-timed as well. Your discussion here on the omni-god is closely adjacent to this examination.
In fact, the final citation in the OP was made after I had finished writing the article. Because your current topic has been so relevant, I had to update it to include it.
This means that mystical fudges, such as the traditional paradoxes of The Trinity (or the nature of Christ) – were acceptable and workable for most people most of the time in the past – but not any more.
One of the purposes of this series is to explore precisely this notion. What I call, possibly imprecisely, “Rationalist Christians” is a group of people who don’t find the theological paradoxes workable, but who may not yet have come to the conclusion that they have to reject either those doctrines or else their rational principles. Many are walking contradictions.
One consequence of which is that incoherent theology is now inescapable, and lethal.
Yes, this is a good explanation for my implied question:
I’m actually surprised that it’s taken so many centuries before this inherent relativism within traditional Christianity revealed itself so clearly and plainly in a broad, global, unambiguous way.
Something fundamental has changed in recent times with the way people think, with their consciousness. Something unprecedented.
You’ve written about this for years, but it’s not an easy thing to accept. But, like so many other things, the global response to 2020 clarified so many things that had previously been hidden or unclear.