The World Federation One Stop Fiqh
Search
Menu

Ask an Alim

Doctrine of the Trinity

Q:

Can you please comment on this :

‘As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of His nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to His essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary. cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself.

In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as Unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the Unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any Unitarian doctrine of God. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of His nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to His essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary. cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself.

In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as Unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the Unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any Unitarian doctrine of God’.

– Dr William Lane Craig

A:

As-salamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah

thanks for your question

let’s summarize Craig’s argument:

  1. God is the most perfect thing in every aspect, hence he is perfectly loving.
  2. Love is a primary attribute of God unlike creation
  3. Love requires of sacrificing and giving away yourself.
  4. If God is one person, he cannot give away himself in love for others
  5. God must be plurality of persons and figures so his love could happen the shape of giving away.

Answer:

We accept the first premise,

on the second premise, according Islamic viewpoint God is ever-loving, but love is not his primary attribute because love requires lover and loved one, and about that argument that love is primary because God with love is better than god without, we have to say the same for every good attribute like creation itself. So God must be ever creating because God with creation is more perfect than God without. So this argument is not correct and it is unnecessary . Although we accept that since God is perfect he must have a positive act, in Islamic Kalam and Philosophy it is Called ‘Fayz’ I.e Divine Grace

Also (on 3rd and 4th premise) giving away is not a necessity of love but is a concept that comes from limitation, the reason that we consider sacrifice as a sign of love lies in our limitation (for example we consider spending time or money with someone as a sign of love because they are limited sources for us, hence we consider it a sign of Affection and love) but God is an unlimited being, so he has unlimited sources and his resources for expressing and showing love is unlimited. Also this is against perfection and limitlessness of God.

Now it’s clear that giving away is not necessary related to Love, based on this, Love shouldn’t be in the shape of giving away (On 5th premise), so God could be a self-Loving being, like humans, (or other kinds; every creature is self-loving which is called instinct). A self loving being doesn’t require other entity to show and express his Love, consequently there is no necessity for plurality of persons in God.

So arguing from Love to prove trinity of God is actually incorrect and as we showed is contradictory because it is against God being limitless (please be advised that here we didn’t argued about the problems and inconsistencies in the idea of plural Gods like how it is possible for an unlimited being to be in a limited body? )etc.

Also, in the argument above, Craig is trying to denounce one side of the argument by comparing, but on the other hand, isn’t proving the vice versa on his side of claim.  hence, it is not a complete argument, therefore, the results cannot be extracted from this piece of writing.

 regards

AAA under the guidance of Sheikh Mahdi Mosayyebi