Most people assume that 'God' is a proper name. If this is the case then we ought to apply the semantics to 'God' that apply to other proper names. However, it if isn't a proper name, and instead 'God' is a general term, then the semantics that apply to general terms apply to 'God'. Perhaps the first question we should ask is whether 'God' functions as a proper name. So let's use an example of a proper name:
(1) Bruce Wayne is Batman.
(2) The Dark Knight is Batman.
(3) The Detective is Batman.
The reason why I claim that the 'is' in (1)-(3) is the 'is' of identity is because the predicate term functions as a name. We can apply transivity of identity to (1)-(3) as follows:
(4) Bruce Wayne = The Dark Knight
(5) The Dark Knight = The Detective
Since, (1)-(3) showed that all the names in (4) and (5) were identical to 'Batman' we can assume that 'Batman' is a proper name. So if 'God' is a proper name, then it should function in a similar manner as the examples in (4)and (5)
(6) Jesus is God.
(7) The Father is God.
(8) The Holy Spirit is God.
However, orthodox Christians would reject the following assertions:
(9) Jesus = The Father
(10) The Father - The Holy Spirit
Yet, (6)-(8) shows that the terms in (9) and (10) are identical to God. It seems that the best explanation for the 'is' in (6)-(8) is that all the subject terms are consubstantial with God, that is, the subject terms all share the same substance. So it seems the best way to understand 'God' that 'God' functions as a general term. This is due to the fact that God is a substance. So when we use the word 'God' we refer to a divine substance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Does this imply God is not a person?
I would say that this implies that God is a substance and refers to the conjunction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So 'God' refers to three persons and one being. So I guess that this implies that God isn't a person, because if God were, then we would have 4 persons in the Trinity: God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit
Interestig comments. Here is hopefully an interesting reply.
1) Bruce Wayne is NOT Batman. Bruce Wayne is Batman's other alter ego. He is not really Batman per se. At least in some ways he is not.
So I reject your example as being simplistic. It is too simplisitic when dealing with a fictional character created by man and it is thus way too simple when one is spekaing about the mystery of the Trinity.
And BTW the words used to describe God as Father and Son cannot be seperated. If you describe one as a Father then he must have a Son. Bruce Wayne or Batman can be thought of without each other. This ust throws another wrinkle into this.
Also how often does the term God refer to the Father in scripture, tradition, and the liturgy and when does it refer to the substance or nature? I interject that most often the term God refers directly to the Father and Jesus is called the Son of God.
blackhaw,
Linguistically, names refer to their referents. They either directly refer or have a sense along with the referent. The third view is that of John Locke, however, since he was wrong about perception, his view of language fails, since it relies upon his view of perception being correct. So, when I utter the word 'Batman' it refers to its referent. Whatever the referent of 'Batman' is, that is what the word refers to. Whether there is a sense associated with 'Batman' doesn't affect my argument. So my example isn't simplistic, it simply illustrates the linguistic and semantic mechanism of reference.
With respect to the Trinity and Divine Substance, I don't think you're presenting an objection to my view. Here is my view of the Trinity: The Father is God; The Son is God; The Holy Spirit is God; The Father is not the Son and he is not the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father and he is not the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Son and he is not the Father.
If you reject my quick explanation of the Trinity, then you can reject my argument, but if so, tell me which of the above statements you reject.
"So, when I utter the word 'Batman' it refers to its referent. Whatever the referent of 'Batman' is, that is what the word refers to. Whether there is a sense associated with 'Batman' doesn't affect my argument. So my example isn't simplistic, it simply illustrates the linguistic and semantic mechanism of reference."
But is the refferent of Batman the same as the referent of Bruce Wayne?
As far as the Trintiy goes my point is that often in scripture Jesus is not God. He is the Son of God. The Father is God. So the general rule for many is that when one says "God" one is speaking about the Father alone.
Scripture most often uses the term God to speak about the Father alone. Scriptures uses Son of God or Lord to speak about the Son. Doesn't that challenge your theory? The term God in these circumstances is speaking about one person i nthe Godhead. It is not a term being used to speak about the whole Godhead. So God cannot be just a general term. It is just not how the term is used in scripture.
Post a Comment