should be GODxGODxGOD=GOD!
Clarke: I can’t disagree.
Madeleine: Of course, now the idea of Jesus being multiplied the times of the Father and so on looks a little strange.
Clarke: Yes, but it’s all an attempt to understand this unity.
Madeleine: You mean mathematical unity?
Clarke: It seems so here.
Madeleine: Then, perhaps my Mathematics teacher will have a formula that will solve this problem.
Clarke: [Appearing a little stunned] I don’t think so. I don’t think God can be reduced to a mathematical formula. He is above Maths.
Madeleine: But, then, dad isn’t it really a problem involving numbers?
Clarke: Perhaps, not so much so; may be more a problem of defining what divine unity or Tri-unity exactly means.
Madeleine: So, you mean that the meaning of “unity” is to be solved?
Clarke: Yes. I think that the doctrine should not stray through a mathematical red herring, due to ambiguity.
Madeleine: What is a red herring, dad?
Clarke: A red herring is any idea that diverts attention from the main line of argument or discussion. When we talk of unity in the Trinity, it is not chiefly about numerical unity.
Madeleine: I think the problem is chiefly about whether there are three gods or one God.
Clarke: We have already seen that “unity” doesn’t mean “combination of different parts to make one.”
Madeleine: Yes, we have.
Clarke: Also, we saw that “unity” doesn’t mean “identity,” the three persons are not the same person, for instance, as in the belief of Sabellianism.
Madeleine: Yes, we have.
Clarke: So, the numerical is certainly ruled away.
Madeleine: I’m not sure if it is. It still looks like a problem of numbers: how 3 can be equal to 1.
Clarke: In mathematics, unity is always the instance of a singular one, whether it is fractional or non-fractional, a sum or a product. But, let’s look it from a different angle. Do you know that there can be different kinds of unity other than mathematical unity?
Madeleine: For instance, when we speak about unity in diversity in the nation?
Clarke: Right. There can be something called unity of faith, unity of will, social unity, and functional unity.
Madeleine: Well, that wouldn’t pose any problem in understanding God; and, we already spoke of the divine community which certainly involves a social and functional unity.
Clarke: And, there is also something which we’ll call as the essential unity of distinction.
Madeleine: What is that?
Clarke: It is the unity of nature. For instance, when I say that Man is mortal, does it talk about a single man or about only males or about the entire humanity in general?
Madeleine: It refers to the entire humanity in general.
Clarke: It certainly will have no reference to cats.
Madeleine: Of course, not.
Clarke: So, the word Man involves a unity of nature. It is what we will call humanhood. Similarly, cats have the nature which can be called cathood, or feline nature to be precise.
Madeleine: And, God possesses the nature of Godhood.
Clarke: Yes. It is this Godhood, or Godhead, or divine nature that distinguishes God from the world.
Madeleine: Isn’t it possible that there are an infinite number of gods who have the divine nature?
Clarke: An infinite number of anything would be an impossibility because an infinite number of anything in the very present would bring the universe to a standstill.
Madeleine: How?
Clarke: Infinity of numbers at a singular instance would eat up every instance of space and every possibility of future time.
Madeleine: Seems so.
Clarke: On the other hand, many infinites are a conceptual impossibility. If there is an infinite ocean, how many such oceans can there be?
Madeleine: Surely, only one.
Clarke: So, since the Godhead possesses the nature of infinity, God can only be one; there cannot be many gods.
Madeleine: True. And, even if they were, they would not be infinite, but finite, in which case they would not truly be God.
Clarke: Brilliant! Now, let’s look at the Trinity from this angle of the Godhead. The Bible teaches us that the Godhead is eternal; but, at the same time, the Godhead is Triune (though the term is not used in the Bible).
Madeleine: True. It also looks like the Godhead has a distinction above humanhood or cathood.
Clarke: Certainly, the divine nature is fully different. Of course, since man is created in God’s image, a few resemblances exist, but the essential difference (the ontological one as the theologians would call it) is sharp. God is a Being who transcends the nature of the world.
Madeleine: Can you explain this a bit more?
Clarke: Sure. The Bible talks of, at least, three kinds of existence: divine existence, angelic existence, and cosmic existence. Humans are separate from cats or doves, but they are part of cosmic existence. Their kind of existence is separate from the angelic one which is above space and time, yet not without some form of space and time (angels can be confined in places for a time, can move from place to place in time). But, God’s existence is above both the cosmic and angelic existences. He is without a beginning or an end. He is infinite.
Madeleine: Right.
Clarke: So, the Godhead must not be understood in the same manner that humanhood or angelhood or cathood is understood.
Madeleine: Sure.
Clarke: Also, when the Bible teaches us that the Godhead is infinite, it also teaches us that the Godhead is Triune, which we have already seen.
Madeleine: Yes, we have.
Clarke: Thus, Divine Unity should actually be seen as the intrinsic nature of God; which (though difficult to comprehend in the same manner that Infinity is conceptually incomprehensible) is a Scriptural truth.
Madeleine: Are there rational grounds for accepting this truth?
Clarke: Of course, yes. In fact, there are rational grounds. There are several rational reasons for not believing unity to be essentially numerical in nature.
Madeleine: What are they?
Clarke: Many of these were put forward by a philosopher called Zeno in the 5th century B.C. They are popularly known as Zeno’s paradoxes. These try to show that unity in numerical reality and unity as we experience it are two different things. Both of these should be kept apart or else their fusion would lead to elimination of one of them. Let me tell you two of them. The first is known as Achilles and the Tortoise:
[Clarke uses pencil and paper to draw and explain]
Suppose Achilles and a tortoise begin a race. Achilles allows the tortoise to have the head start since he is confident that the slow tortoise will never win the race. But now in order for Achilles to get past by the tortoise, he will first have to reach the point left behind by tortoise; but by that time the tortoise would have already gone by farther from the point, and so on ad infinitum. In other words, if A1 is the point where the tortoise is presently and Achilles has to reach this point before he can overtake the tortoise, by the time Achilles would have got to point A1 the tortoise would have gone a bit away and be at point A2 which would then become the next point which Achilles would have to reach in order to overtake the tortoise, but by the time he gets to A2 the tortoise would have gone a bit more farther, and so on ad infinitum. In this way, logically Achilles can never overtake the tortoise. But in real life experience, Achilles is seen to overtake the tortoise, and therein lies the paradox. In reality Achilles overtakes the tortoise, but logically he cannot. This proves that the universe has a kind of unity that makes motion possible, but this unity cannot be numerical in nature.
________________________
Achilles and Tortoise Race:
Tortoise starts first but Achilles wins.
But logically,
Achilles at A_______________________Tortoise at A1.
By
the time Achilles gets to A1, the Tortoise would already have gone to A2, and so on….
So, Achilles can never logically overtake the Tortoise in the numerical world of logic.
________________________
The second is known as the Arrow:
Consider an apparently flying arrow, in any instant. At any given moment, the arrow occupies a particular position in space equal to its length. But for an arrow to occupy a position in space equal to its length means that it is at rest. However, since the arrow must always occupy such a position in space equal to its length, the arrow must be at rest at all moments. Moreover, since space as quantity is infinitely divisible, the flying arrow occupies an infinite number of these positions of rest. But the sum of an infinite number of these positions of rest is not a motion. Therefore, the arrow is never in motion. The absurd conclusion would then be that the flying arrow is ever at rest, which is impossible. Thus, for the arrow to really be flying, there must be a form of unity in reality that is different from mere mathematical or numerical reality.
Madeleine: Well, I think if such a simple thing as experience of motion could be so difficult to fully logically understand in our world, then God is, in fact, greater than His creation.
Clarke: True. However, there is a purpose in God’s revealing to us His Triune nature. He also wants His children everywhere to be one in Him as God is one. Of course, we are one as a family and as a community, but He wants us to be one as a Body. Now, this would be an impossibility since we are humans and He is God and our existence is different than His. Also, unity means different when Jesus said “I and the Father are One”. But, here is the mystery of divine salvation revealed. Let’s read
A Dialogue on Trinity Page 2