Newtonian views on the trinity: An analysis

Purpose

This is an analysis of Issac Newtons’s comments on his views on the triune God. I don’t quite view Newton an authority on this subject, yet I think his comments still require addressing in a concise manner.

Overview

These 12 (13?) points we never something Newton chose to publicly disclose, and were found within his personal writings. While he did heavily support the idea of theistic creation given the beauty of creation and mathematics, he was critical of the concept of the trinity.

Definitions

It would be wise to first define what is meant by a triune God. This will go a long way in helping to clear up some parts of scripture Newton thought contradicted the trinity. It will also help to define some names of different philosophies about the trinity

Newton’s Objections

1

The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.

This is a little tricky to address as I don’t know what hebrew or greek word for God he is referring to. However, regardless of what word is used, it falls prey to the confusion between God as a being and the Persons of God. To use the word God to signify more than one of the three persons might lead to confussing the persons of God (i.e. It is at least possible that the NT writers did this in order to keep people from thinking the Son synonymous with the Spirit).

One of the things that needs to be considered is that the New Testament authors were trying to navigate the concept of the Trinty while also carefully avoiding the accusation of polytheism. The NT writers did affirm the deity of Christ in multiple areas implicitly (e.g. Subsituting Jesus in OT scriptures that referred to God). Regardless, This objection does nothing to undermine the concept of the trinity, but actually affirms the fact that each person is referred to as God.

Lastly, Though I think @stealthy_warlord might object to this point, one of the hebrew words used for God is actually a singular plural (similar how it would be said that a cluster of grapes are one), which would imply more than one person, but one being.

2

The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.

If I am understanding this statement correctly, it is essentially saying that in the scriptures the default meaning of the word God is the same as God the Father. However, one must not forget the original contexts of these scriptures. With the new revelations from the NT, there were concepts that had to be introduced with care and clairity. Two of these concepts would be that of the Son and of the Spirit. With the interactions within the Trinity, the person of the Father would be closest to how the ancient Hebrews would have understood God, thus needing less specification.

The Son needed to be specified due the concept of God taking on this role of a servant and a sacrifice. The whole reason of specifying the Son as God is so that there is reason to not trust in the belief of Arianism. If it were not the case, how much more likely would Arianism rise as a result of this? I think if Newton’s statement was to imply some non-trinitarian view, then it clearly backfired.

The Spirit needed to be specified due to the concept of God indwelling those who are saved. While it was already known that God is omnipresent, the idea of God dwelling within the saved would have to be specified as the Holy Spirit in order to avoid the Helper being confused with some other lesser spiritual being. Thus, it makes sense that it had to be constantly reiterated: the Holy Spirit is God.

3

Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.

I am asumming by scriptures Newton means the NT, as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was a NT revelation given to us by Jesus. Regardless, I thik my point in #2 also applies to this. The NT writers were very careful to avoid the implication of there being more than one God, but that doesn’t mean they never imply Jesus Christ to be God. Here are two examples:

In 1 Corinthians 8:6

  • yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.*

The word for God here is “θεὸς” (Theos) and the word for Lord is “κύριος” (kyrios). Before any objections are that kyrios doesn’t refer to God, it is used numerous times in the scriptures when quoting OT scriptures that referred to God (1st Corinthians 14:21, 2nd Corinthians 6:17 & 18, and 2nd Corinthians 10:17 just for those two letters alone). Here we see clearly Paul avoiding the accusation of polytheism, yet still showing that Christ is God.

Another possible issue someone might bring up is that the words for from “ἐξ” (ek) and through “διά” (dia) are different. However, both have been used in a way similar to “by” in english. Not only that, but this still would not call the trinity into question, as this is merely stating the origin and cause of all things, which are both attributed to God. There is nothing wrong to say that God’s divine Logos was the cause of all things and God’s divine power was the origin of all things.

In Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Is the NT writer quoting the psalms and subsituting in Jesus Christ where God is mentioned, effectively equating Jesus to God.

4

When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.

This seems to dance dangerously close to an etymological fallacy. Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the time, and thus was spoken in many cultures that would be wholly separated from Platonist philosophies. To imagine that a Hebrew Sadducee from Jerusalem and a Greek Philosopher from Thebes would have the same understanding of the word logos doesn’t sound very plausible.

Nonetheless, if logos is referring to how Platonists would describe it, that still would not give good ground to Arianism. In John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Arians claim that the Logos refers to a being created by God that then brought everything else into being. However, this does not obtain, as the Logos is so tightly linked to God that to state the Logos as contingent on God would imply that God is not necessarily logical by nature.

It also doesn’t obtain that the Logos is a contingent being, as only contingent things come into being, yet the Logos did not come into being as all things came into being with the Logos being the efficient cause of all things. Given the previous statement, we have to assume that apart does not mean “Except for” but “without”. This is because of the repetative nature of the statement, and if it were the case that apart meant “except”, then we should expect John to have added the same exception to the meaning of all.

In addition, the next usage of the greek word “apart” (choris) in John isn’t used in a way the Arianist would want. The other usage is in John 15:5

I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

Which draws a nice parallel to the first chapter. One might even imagine that this phrase is from what John drew from as inspiration for the beginning of his gospel. The next usage of the word just refers to the burial clothes of Jesus being set aside and probably shouldn’t be seen as to have the same literary weight as the previous two.

Thus we can conclude that irrespective of the etemology of the time, an Arianist interpretation of John 1 would still be incorrect.

5

The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.

This is assuming that the statement Jesus made is referring in totality and not just Christ’s humbled state during His ministry on earth before He ascended. At best one could argue that this statement could go either way, but one must also consider the background information and not isolate scriptures.

When Christ became incarnate, He willingly chose to set aside much of His divine rights by the act of humbliling Himself and taking on a human nature. However, the union and relationship within the Trinity was still present, and would make sense for Jesus to rely on the Father for guidance, knowledge, and will given Christ voluntary limitations. It is, at the very least, possible that Jesus did not have His perfect foreknowledge, and thus needed to depend on the Father, who did have divine omniscence, to know what He had to acomplish. Even though Jesus was morally perfect and His will was completely aligned with the Father’s, He still depended on the Father’s knowledge of what must happen in order to make good decisions according to both of their wills.

In addition, Christ’s life was a perfect demonstration of how man ought to be in perfect relation to the Father. This is modeled through His knowledge of God’s word, constant devotion in prayer, complete humility and reliance on God, and obedience to Him even to death. So it is also possible that this is Christ showing us how we ought to align our wills to the will of God and depend completely on Him.

6

The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.

A good analogy used by Nabeel Qureshi is “The president of the United States of America is greater than me, but that doesn’t mean he is more human than me.” Another point is Jesus uses a reference to King David in Psalm 110 to show that He is the Christ. In this passage there is the verse

The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”

Which shows the divinity of Christ, as King david had no earthly lord, yet the hebrew phrase uses Lord (Yahweh & Adonai). Both of these words are used to refer to God, and makes the concept of the trinity the most plausible option to not only interpret this verse, but also of how Jesus uses it. To suggest that this is referring to a created being would lead to idolatrous propositions.

All of this is also ignoring the other two points I made in 5 & 8, where while Jesus is performing His earthly ministry, He relies on the Father.

7

The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.

Again, this is assuming that the statement is not referring to Christ’s ministry before He ascended. However, there isn’t any reason given for this assumption, and taking the surrounding scriptures as context to interpret the passages where Jesus says this would further delegitamize this claim.

As previously stated, when the Son became incarnate and humbled Himself, He would have set aside His right to divine omniscience. By choosing to take on a human nature, He was truly human and thus likewise limited in knowledge of the future. Thus He would have to depend on the Father for guidence. None of this seems to contradict the idea of the Trinity.

8

There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.

This seems to be an argument from silence about Jesus’s human nature. However, this type of argument is more geared towards historical events rather than theological concepts and will only hold if

  1. The author was expected to have such information
  2. The author was intending to give a complete account of the situation
  3. The item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve mentioning at the time

The first would only hold if there was already a conceptulization of the hypostatic union during the times of the NT. However, it is irational to expect this for the apostles who did know the truth of salvation and the need to spread the gospel, but did not require a robust theological doctrine on the dual natures of christ.

The second wouldn’t hold either, as John’s intention was almost the opposite. The focus is on showing the divinity of Christ and not the humanity, as to those who were with Jesus in person weren’t questioning the humanity of Christ.

The third would hold in a sense, but not in the way of expecting an explanation of Jesus being truly man. I go more into detail on #9, but to summerize: the humanity of Christ as a sacrifice for all of humanity is a necessary aspect for atonement on behalf of humanity. Because the authors assert Christ’s atomement for the sins of all, His humanity is clearly implied. Thus this would count as mention of Jesus’s truly human nature.

9

It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.

The problem with this statement is that the theological implications don’t seem to be followed to their logical conclusion. The reason for Christ to have a truly human nature is because that is what would be necessary for one to take on the sin of humanity. Because of this, the entire gospel would fall apart if Christ was not truly human. Thus, the Apostles preaching the gospel implicitly asserts the human nature of Jesus Christ.

Secondarily, it is the having of a true human nature, not the having of a human sould, that is the important part. It is also a heresy to claim that there was a separate human soul apart from the Son that was overtaken by the divine. To say so would be no different than claiming Jesus was possesed. So since such a belief would be considered incorrect doctrine, why would we expect that to be mentioned in the scriptures?

10

It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives from the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.

The persons of the Trinity are not independent from one another, as God is one being, but the persons are distinct. It doesn’t make sense for a person to exist without a being, and since God is a necessary being, so is His nature. If God’s nature is trinitarian, then to have one person exist and the others not would be a logical ontradiciton, since to be necessary means that it cannot fail to exist. Therefore, it makes logical sense for a trinitarian to say “if the Father did not exist, the Son could not do anything” as well as to refer to “apart from” as one cannot exist “apart from” their own nature.

11

The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.

If the act of the Son, to submit His will, was described as a good/virtuous act, then it would be compeletely unreasonable if the Son was lesser than the Father. Similar to how a weak, harmless man isn’t virtuous for witholding himself from a fight, the Son wouldn’t be virtuous for submitting to the Father if he wasn’t equal with Him. On the other hand, it is virtuous for a strong, dangerous man to abstain from a fight. Thus, in order for this to be seen as a loving and virtuous act, the Son must be equal with the Father.

12

The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.

This statement doesn’t seem to be at all anti-trinitarian in it’s assersions. It is never said in scripture (I am assuming this statement is referring to Jesus’s high preistly prayer) that the union between Him and the Father is merely in agreement of will and counsel, but that it is an aspect of their relationship within the Trinity.

13

…

This entry was left blank in Newton’s writings. Now I may be channelling some inner english teacher in me, but I think you could draw some insight from this. These writings weren’t something he wanted to end up publishing, but more intentful pondering on the mystery of the Trinity. It is more likely that these are personal notes of one wrestling with Theological concepts rather than one dismissing Christianity altogether.