This article is the third and final part examining William HaskerAmerican philosopher of religion known for work on open theism, mind-body dualism, and social Trinitarianism.'s view on the Trinity.

• PART 1: PERSON, NATURE, CONSTITUTION
• PART 2: PROCESSIONS, FATHER, SON, SPIRIT
• PART 3: GOD, TRINITY (you're here)

William Hasker on the Trinity (Part 3/3)

In our series reviewing William Hasker's model of the Trinity, we have defined the concepts of "person," "nature," "constitution," "procession," "the Father," "the Son," and "the Spirit." Today we'll discuss the terms "God" and "Trinity." According to Hasker, the term "God" has three distinct uses within discussions of the Trinity: (1) the Father, Yahweh; (2) a predicate meaning "divine"; and (3), the Trinity.[1][2] We'll start with the first definition:

God: (1) the Father, Yahweh.

The most standard meaning of the term "God" is a reference to the one divine person of the Father. This is a nominal sense of the term "God," the use of the term "God" as a title or name. This is critical to understand, as this is the most common use of the term "God" in Scripture. Consider the following passage:

1 Timothy 2:5 (NASB) "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and mankind, the Man Christ Jesus."

On any analysis, the verse is not an issue for the Trinity since it doesn't state that Jesus is not God. However, it almost seems as if Paul is going out of his way to not call him God. Non-Trinitarians such as Muslims or Unitarians may ask us, "Why doesn't Paul call Jesus God here, but just the man who mediates between God and mankind?"

The central answer to this question is found in the fact that the term "God" in Scripture is most commonly used in the nominal sense, as a name for the Father. When the Father and Son are referenced together, the Father is called God. This observation fundamentally changed how I saw the biblical data concerning the deity of Christ; as previously, passages such as these challenged me.

The fact that the term "God" most commonly references the Father is in no way evidence for unitarianism, for this does not deny that the term has other uses. Hasker argues that when the Father is called "the one God," it need not be taken as an identity statement that excludes the Son and the Holy Spirit.

God: (2) a predicate meaning "divine."

The term "God" in this usage is not a proper name but rather a predicate adjective. To state that the Son is "God" means that he has the characteristic of full divinity. Consider John 1:1, where the Word is with God, and the Word is God. This is best taken as meaning that Christ is with God the Father and is himself divine. For further consideration, read the statements from Paul where he might be explicitly calling Jesus God (Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13).[3]

Often, when the Father and Son are referenced together, the Father is called God and the Son is called Lord. This matches the use in 1 Corinthians 8:6, which states, "There is only one God, the Father ... and one Lord, Jesus Christ," and also the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one God, the Father almighty ... and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God."

The stricter distinction between the nominal and predicative use of the term "God" is more heavily emphasized in Monarchical or Conciliar Trinitarianism, such as the view defended by Joshua SijuwadeContemporary philosopher of religion known for work on the arguments for God's existence and a conciliar Trinitarianism.. He would emphasize that within Nicene Christianity, a principle formed that the Son should be called God only when referenced separately from the Father. Gregory of Nazianzus4th-century bishop from Cappadocia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). One of the three Cappadocian Fathers, along with Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa. He briefly presided over the Council of Constantinople. explains:

"Define our piety by teaching the knowledge of: One God, unbegotten, the Father; and One begotten Lord, his Son, referred to as 'God' (θεός) when he is mentioned separately, but 'Lord' when he is named together with the Father—the first on account of the [divine] nature, the second on account of the monarchy."[4]

Gregory's statement that the Father has priority to the term "God" on account of his monarchy is a reference to the doctrine of processions. The Father receives the title "God" because he is the source of the godhead, even though the Son and Spirit share the one divine essence.

God: (3) The Trinity.

While Hasker acknowledges that Scripture and much of early Christianity do not use the term "God" as a term referencing the three divine persons, he argues that it is "unavoidable" for Trinitarian Christianity. Hasker argues that this meaning is the "full and final answer" to the question "What is God?" He states that if someone asks, "What is God?" answering with only one divine person is correct but an incomplete description. Hasker states:

"Nevertheless, it is essential to identify the entire Trinity as God if Trinitarianism is to be a form of monotheism. If we insist on the identification of the one God with the Father alone, and if we also assert that the Son and the Spirit are fully divine (as we must if we are to be Trinitarians), we will have, in addition to God, two other fully divine Persons. This, it seems, is no longer monotheism."

Therefore, Hasker states:

"For Christians, the full and final answer to the question, 'What is God?' is and can only be, 'God is the Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.'"

On the one hand, Hasker's point seems strong. The description that God is the Father seems incomplete. However, drawing on Nazianzus and the Nicene trajectory in general, it is insisted that the biblical use of the term "God" as meaning "Father" is what is championed. If the Nicene Creed is to be a guide on how the question should be answered, we should answer "God is the Father." I tend toward the Monarchical view's use of language and confess in unison with Nicene Christianity that the one God is the Father. Additionally, I would insist, drawing from Hasker's model, that the Son and Spirit are just as constituted by the divine essence as the Father is.

Hasker would undoubtedly see this as a threat to monotheism, since two other divine Persons are being posited in addition to God. However, the threat against monotheism here is only semantic. Ontologically speaking, if one affirms Hasker's view that the Son and Spirit are just as much constituted by the divine essence as the Father, the tension is only resulting from the fact that the Father is the only one who receives the name "God." It's also worth acknowledging that many of the Cappadocians, who played such a central role in the development of Nicene Christianity, explicitly defined monotheism linguistically. Basil of Caesarea4th-century bishop from Cappadocia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), also known as Basil the Great. One of the three Cappadocian Fathers, along with Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. He was influential in refining the Orthodox Trinitarian formula of one essence and three persons. states "there is one God because there is one Father." If Hasker's view regarding constitution is affirmed, then the ontological sense of monotheism is also preserved; there is one God because there is one divine trope. In no sense of the term "God" (linguistic or ontological) is there more than one God.

Now, from the Monarchical Trinitarian perspective, it is alleged that if God is the Trinity, the logical problem of the Trinity will arise. However, because Hasker takes the relationship of person and essence in terms of constitution and denies divine simplicity, he does not have such an issue. Hasker asserts simultaneously:

1. The Trinity is God in terms of identity.
2. Jesus is God in terms of predication.
3. Jesus is the divine essence in terms of constitution.

Since the term "is" is being equivocated here, there is no collapsing result that "Jesus is the Trinity." If this is confusing, see the first part of this article series, which addresses the logical problem of the Trinity and Hasker's use of constitution here. Regardless, even if Monarchical Trinitarianism has a linguistic solution to the logical problem of the Trinity, stating that only the Father is God, it still has a logical one. If the Father and Son are numerically identical with the divine essence (even if the Father is the only one called "God"), they still have to answer why the Father is not the Son.

Trinity: the union and communion of the three divine persons.

For Hasker, the Trinity is a tightly unified community of the three distinct selves who are constituted by a single trope of deity. Since the relationship between persons and nature is understood in terms of constitution, Hasker can say that each person is wholly God in that they are constituted by the divine essence, but no single person is the whole of God.

Unity & Conclusions

Since Hasker regards essence and nature as synonymous and finds the unity of God in terms of God as a single divine trope, it immediately prompted me to ask how he would understand the unity of the two natures of Christ. Remember, for Hasker, God is "a single concrete divine nature—a single trope of deity." So the unity of the Persons is defined by the unity of the single divine trope.

In the case of the two natures of Christ, which constitute distinct tropes of humanity and divinity, the union of the two natures rests within the Person of Christ. The union of the two natures of Christ is present in the one Person of Christ, and the union of the three divine Persons rests in the one trope of divinity. The Trinity exists in a relationship of necessity, with no logical space to separate the Persons from the divine nature. The incarnation, however, is a contingent historical action taken by the Son. The trope of humanity constitutes the Son alone, not the Father or the Spirit. In this way, distinguishing tropes and persons, the unity of Christ and the unity of the Trinity are explained.

By way of summary, I would argue that Hasker's model is preferable for at least five reasons.

1. His view maintains a robust understanding of persons as rational, conscious subjects capable of willing and loving.
2. His view maintains monotheism by defending the divine nature as a single trope.
3. His view provides a strong account of the relationship between person and nature via constitution, providing a coherent response to the logical problem of the Trinity.
4. His view maintains openness to the doctrine of processions, present in Nicene Christianity.
5. His view provides an openness to different senses of the term "God," such as referencing the "trinity," the "divine nature," and "the Person of the Father," depending on context.