- This topic has 400 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 6 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been stalking this conversation, and I’ve found it fascinating. My dad says the reason the ancient Israelites weren’t taught about the Trinity is because of how rampant polytheism was. It had to be eradicated before they could understand Three in One and One in Three. By the time Jesus came, the Jews had a lot of problems, but they did know that there was only one God. Therefore, they were ready to be taught about the Trinity.
Tempus adest gratiae
Hoc quod optabamus,
Carmina laetitiae
Devote reddamus!Hey dude. I just had a random thought, and I wondered how it would be interpreted by you.
From my point of view, I don’t disagree with you that there are “gods” or spirits that can be of many different types, but generalize themselves as the same thing. I can understand the referring of the Three as One to be a similar situation.
But for me, the issue becomes apparent when I think about what the role of “God” entails.
For me, God is both the source and personification of truth, creation, and all existence (or “being”). Everything would be nothing without him, and tbh if he is not the source of all of this, that means there is a greater being to worship. Basically the point is to trust the source. I forget the philosophical term… I’m probably thinking of the “first universal for all particulars” or whatever.
When the God of the Bible says “there is no other god but me” or “worship no other god but me” this is a suggestion that he is the ultimate. This is reflected in our relationship with him, as we lust after other sources of joy, but drop them when they cease to satisfy us. Because of this, he is the most powerful and the only thing we can depend on.
This is where I feel convinced of the Trinity. If there is one God, one ultimate (which hypothetically just makes more sense to me; to have multiple sources of truth implies variations in truth), then Three Persons without union sends this into uncertainty.
Is God the Father the Universal, as I’ll call it? If he is, then Jesus is put into question. He is not the Universal and therefore has some kind of variation or difference that divides him from that identity.
You may say that he is still trustworthy/follows the commands of his father, but again, there has to be some difference between him and God to make him a non-Universal. And in this, he should not be seen as equal to God. We can say this about any of the minor “gods” who are still under God’s command. Even the most elevated of angels are not meant to be worshipped, or further yet, trusted as the ultimate rock to lean on.
And yet there are plenty of examples in scripture where Jesus is described as this rock, and I doubt this parallelism to the need for an Ultimate is just thrown in willy-nilly. Jesus is supposed to be treated with the same perfect trust as the Father.
Same thing from the other two Persons’ perspectives. If these three are not the same Universal, one of them has to be, and the others cannot. Thus, two of them should not even be worshipped as strongly – for as mentioned above, “there is no other god like me.”
Because of this I find the Trinity to be an important part of scripture, and not just a random belief to subscribe to and tack on the wall. It hits at the source of what the Bible teaches – One God, and One source of all existence.
The Trinity may be a mystery, but compared to the possibility of multiple Universals, it’s a much stronger mystery to believe in.
…
…Okay, so that wasn’t as short as I thought. 🤣 I guess I want to know how you view this, and if God really is the source of everything or is just a now-ruling source under a greater logic. Honestly, I’m just wondering if and why you find something else more sensible.
#ProtectAdolinKholin
Darn that was long, my apologies *Skedaddles into my hidey hole*
#ProtectAdolinKholin
I’ve been stalking this conversation, and I’ve found it fascinating. My dad says the reason the ancient Israelites weren’t taught about the Trinity is because of how rampant polytheism was. It had to be eradicated before they could understand Three in One and One in Three. By the time Jesus came, the Jews had a lot of problems, but they did know that there was only one God. Therefore, they were ready to be taught about the Trinity.
I agree with this in many ways (other than the actual conclusion of the Trinity itself, but you know what I mean). We must learn line upon line, precept upon precept.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Ok, so this is a wonderful point of discussion to go to when it comes to God’s nature. What is reality itself, and what is existence. A Baptist I’ve debated has been studying Aquinas, and has given the following framework that I think you’ll agree with:
There can only exist beings that are contingent or necessary.
A contingent being is a being that is created/dependent on something else in order to exist. A contingent being can also stop existing, since it’s dependent.
A necessary being simply exists, and can’t not exist. A necessary being cannot change, since if it changes, then that means that it’s previous state of being wasn’t necessary, since that state stopped existing. (This is what your calling universal)
If there are multiple necessary beings, then their identity would be partially defined by their relationship with the other, which means they are dependent on each other.
Therefore there can only be one necessary being, upon which all other beings are contingent.
I personally think this logic is reasonable, but I ultimately disagree with it. My issue with it is it’s making a assumption on what it means to be. The understanding here is that a being is any ontology simple and otherwise, and the properties found in that ontology. So in other words, you are not the same being you were yesterday, since your mind, body, and location have all changed. In fact, you mentally murdered the you of a instant ago, being replaced by a different being. This isn’t what being means. You are you, your body, mind, and soul. Aspects of you may change, but part of you that makes you you, will not change, having the same personable experience of being. I call this the irreducible self. Your body is not a simple ontology, and neither is your mind, but you are a simple ontology, meaning you can’t be broken down into simpler parts.
Anyways, back to the necessary being. If there exists two separate necessary beings, I would argue that their identity would still be internally found as simple ontologies. If they are both necessary though, then that means if you remove one, you remove existence itself, so they must be dependent on each other in some sense. I would argue that this is ok. A heart and mind are contingent on each other, and yet are two separate entities while they are part of a greater ontology. So why then I must ask, can’t there exist a non-simple necessary being? Isn’t God three persons? These persons suggest a non-simplicity, even if they are non-partial, maybe a good way to put it is that God’s ontology is conceptually non-simplistic.
If there exists a non-simple ontology though, then there exists the simples of that ontology also. This means that there can be multiple ontologies as well, or multiple beings who are all collectively necessary, while also internally contingent, like organs in a body.
I think I strayed too much from your original point though, so I’ll respond to individual quotes.
For me, God is both the source and personification of truth, creation, and all existence (or “being”). Everything would be nothing without him, and tbh if he is not the source of all of this, that means there is a greater being to worship. Basically the point is to trust the source. I forget the philosophical term… I’m probably thinking of the “first universal for all particulars” or whatever.
So this goes to Descartes idea of something of which nothing greater can be conceived. If God is not the source of all that is, then clearly there must be something greater. I’d argue that this is not necessarily correct. God is the most high, and He is a necessary being, but I believe that reality itself is also presupposed, and simply is. Is reality worth worshiping? What is there to worship? It has no sense of self. This is like saying a rock that just formed out of magma is more important than a baby that was born moments after. The universe is all for naught without God, but He is for not without it.
This is where I feel convinced of the Trinity. If there is one God, one ultimate (which hypothetically just makes more sense to me; to have multiple sources of truth implies variations in truth), then Three Persons without union sends this into uncertainty.
So once again, I believe that reality itself exists necessarily, and God is not reality. I can say that God is the literal personification of truth in a sense, but you and I are going to read that in very different ways. Regardless, reality sets the standard of truth, then the three persons have perfect mastery over that. They are each necessary also, for they must sustain reality to be true. This “sustaining” isn’t an act of will, but merely a property of existence. So they don’t each have different variations of truth.
I guess I want to know how you view this, and if God really is the source of everything or is just a now-ruling source under a greater logic. Honestly, I’m just wondering if and why you find something else more sensible.
Cutting to the end, because I think I’ve semi-addressed the majority of your points, and I gotta get to bed, but we can keep going at it tomorrow.
I just simply find it more sensible for there to be that which is, and that which isn’t. Essentially metaphysical thermodynamics. I believe truth to be fundamental, and self existent, but that is for naught without a mind to comprehend it. Classical theism suggests that God in order to be the greatest thing, must be reality itself, but I feel like this is a mistake between a canvas and the paints on it. The paints may rely on the Canvas, but that doesn’t mean it’s the canvas we look at to admire a painting. I don’t think I’m conveying my view really well here honestly, but I’m really tired, so I’ll come back to this tomorrow when I’m more awake.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Ok, so this is a wonderful point of discussion to go to when it comes to God’s nature. What is reality itself, and what is existence.
Alriiiight, let’s do this *cracks knuckles*
If there are multiple necessary beings, then their identity would be partially defined by their relationship with the other, which means they are dependent on each other.
Therefore there can only be one necessary being, upon which all other beings are contingent.
Under the assumption of necessary beings, yes.
I personally think this logic is reasonable, but I ultimately disagree with it. My issue with it is it’s making a assumption on what it means to be. The understanding here is that a being is any ontology simple and otherwise, and the properties found in that ontology. So in other words, you are not the same being you were yesterday, since your mind, body, and location have all changed. In fact, you mentally murdered the you of a instant ago, being replaced by a different being. This isn’t what being means. You are you, your body, mind, and soul. Aspects of you may change, but part of you that makes you you, will not change, having the same personable experience of being. I call this the irreducible self. Your body is not a simple ontology, and neither is your mind, but you are a simple ontology, meaning you can’t be broken down into simpler parts.
I believe we were originally created, and aren’t our own universal. Thus under God’s power we can be broken down into different parts – as before Adam, there was no Adam. But God doesn’t want this. We are consistent beings, not changing into new beings every single day – only under God’s choice. To some degree our bodies and minds change in the physical realm, but God is the person who gives us our consistent definitions as ourselves.
If God is a universal by himself and can continue concepts by the power of his own will, our continual existence is not an issue.
Anyways, back to the necessary being. If there exists two separate necessary beings, I would argue that their identity would still be internally found as simple ontologies. If they are both necessary though, then that means if you remove one, you remove existence itself, so they must be dependent on each other in some sense. I would argue that this is ok. A heart and mind are contingent on each other, and yet are two separate entities while they are part of a greater ontology. So why then I must ask, can’t there exist a non-simple necessary being? Isn’t God three persons? These persons suggest a non-simplicity, even if they are non-partial, maybe a good way to put it is that God’s ontology is conceptually non-simplistic.
While I see how you’ve described another way to interpret a necessary being, and how there can be multiple necessities, you’re still missing the point of what makes multiple necessities even a thing. To get down to a necessary universal, it would have to exist without being defined by anything else. It is one point, by itself. To have multiple necessities which depend on each other – at least to me – either contradicts the meaning of a necessity because they are contingent on each other for their own definitions/way of existing… or it means they have the same core identity/necessary energy, which I would say suggests they are the same God. If their core is the same without any contradictions, I don’t know why you are arguing they aren’t the same Necessity/God.
I know you believe they fall under the same complex ontology, so I’ll go further.
One way to see this (which I am exploring without much further thought, so bear with me) is the concept of sets. To assume multiple necessities is to create a set, which I think is kind of what you were aiming for with the complex ontology. But a set is defined by an idea.
Take for example, the concept of a chair. There are millions of chairs in the world, and all of them are seen as chairs for one reason or another. But none of them are the concept of a chair that we all vaguely picture – they are just defined as chairs by requirements, like providing a place to sit, or having a back. I have a feeling you’re already familiar with this.
Like I just said above, having multiple necessities/universal sources implies a set. A necessity isn’t supposed to be within a set by definition. It isn’t supposed to follow a higher rule of what a necessity is – it is its own rule (because it doesn’t flow from anything). So you can’t say the three Persons are their own universals under a complex ontology… unless I’m misunderstanding you for some reason. But I believe this point still stands.
As an simple affirmation of this, as I have mentioned before, the Bible stresses one point of truth or being. There is one God to trust, and any other points of trust are worthless. Many of the blessings in the New Testament speak of “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” This speaks of three people to trust who are on total par with each other. But if you look into the Old Testament, the entire thing stresses the existence of one God who does not wish to be worshiped alongside others. Note that I do not believe this God was just God the Father, because often although he pushes the fact that he and he alone saves his people, those who initiated those glorious deeds were often the Spirit and the Angel of Yahweh (who I believe is meant to be interpreted as the preincarnate Christ).
So this goes to Descartes idea of something of which nothing greater can be conceived. If God is not the source of all that is, then clearly there must be something greater. I’d argue that this is not necessarily correct. God is the most high, and He is a necessary being, but I believe that reality itself is also presupposed, and simply is. Is reality worth worshiping? What is there to worship? It has no sense of self. This is like saying a rock that just formed out of magma is more important than a baby that was born moments after. The universe is all for naught without God, but He is for not without it…
Classical theism suggests that God in order to be the greatest thing, must be reality itself, but I feel like this is a mistake between a canvas and the paints on it. The paints may rely on the Canvas, but that doesn’t mean it’s the canvas we look at to admire a painting.
Yes. And just because the atomical makeup of light creates brilliant colors, doesn’t mean we can’t admire the color as the source of itself.
Okay, that’s a sloppy turn XD What I’m trying to say is that God isn’t just worshiped because he’s a masterpiece. He wants to be admired because he is the only thing to worship, and that is what the Bible sees as a masterpiece. You may say the already existing setting of the universe/logic/etc isn’t worshipable because it doesn’t have a face. This is appeal to emotion, man. Whether or not it has a sense of self (which to me, if it doesn’t, might take away a bit of that universality), the Bible still says there is no other higher power than God and therefore we should worship him, which suggests that any highest power is worthy of worship. According to Biblical values, logic therefore would be worshiped.
As the one source, God defines logic but also falls under it as one of his consistent traits. He is good, and all good flows from him. He is logical, and all logic flows from him.
All this said and done. You keep offering an alternate way to interpret God’s identity. From my point of view, the Trinity is a whole lot more straightforward – though perhaps narrow due to the mystery – and can be interpreted directly from what the Bible teaches. I guess my question is… Why look for round-about ways to reinterpret this, other than for self-edifying purposes? Why is your hypothetical version of God’s identity more plausible than what I’ve pointed out?
While I acknowledge the beauty of finding a road less beaten, we shouldn’t prefer scenic routes. I understand you believe in truth as truth, and no theological interpretation can man up to truth. But God has made it clear he wants us to know certain things. And I think one beautiful way that he helps us, is by leaving obvious connections between statements in scripture, leaving us a spiderweb of truth instead of random threads to put together ourselves. He’s left breadcrumbs for the Trinity and the necessity for Jesus to be the same God we worship – that point specially – and I don’t know why you’re still weaving your own spiderweb. You go more and more into the hypothetical – and say we can never know which interpretation is true – without acknowledging what is more viable from a Biblical perspective.
#ProtectAdolinKholin
I like the confidence, but I don’t drink coffee. If you want long, we can go long.
It’s completely understandable, I do not drink coffee either. I better go grab a mug of hot cocoa for reading your responce. ☕🍫
Could you elaborate on John 4:34? Either I’m misunderstanding it, or it’s the wrong verse.
I accidentally said the wrong thing. I was trying to say that Jesus always did the will of the Father, showing the harmony between the Father and the Son.
Thanks again for taking such time and care in telling me all of this, and I appreciate your sincerity in desiring that I come to share your understanding. Thank you for the resources you gave as well. I really am sorry that I will not share your view on this today, and I hope this all shows why. I will always be open to more truth, and will always offer a humble heart and contrite spirit, but everything you’ve said I have heard before, and I only become increasingly convinced of the contrary as I’ve taken my own time to study scripture. Whatever the truth may be though, may we all seek and find it. As a Calvinist, take hope, perhaps I am amongst the Lord’s elect, and He will change my heart. However, I have a testimony that this is the truth, and I extend a hand with equal confidence to you as you do me. I do hope we can continue discussing these things, and continue learning and growing in understanding. I know I still have more to say, but I will stop there for now. I look forward to whatever you have to say.
Very well. Seeing as you have dealt with all this before and you have likely dealt with whatever my response to those arguments will be. From what you and Whaley were saying, it seems you have been through this issue on this sight before. I don’t see a point in arguing this further since you are determined to believe this. I still believe this is a primary issue and still doubt you are saved. It may hurt to hear this, but please know I am saying it because I do not want anyone to think he is saved when he is not. I cannot think of a fate worse than the one described in Matthew 7:21-23 and do not want anyone to fall to it. I hope and pray that one day you will see the importance of correctly understanding the Trinity and come to know God for who he is.
I’ve been really busy today, so I’ve been slowly updating this post in bits of free time.
I believe we were originally created, and aren’t our own universal. Thus under God’s power we can be broken down into different parts – as before Adam, there was no Adam. But God doesn’t want this. We are consistent beings, not changing into new beings every single day – only under God’s choice. To some degree our bodies and minds change in the physical realm, but God is the person who gives us our consistent definitions as ourselves.
And that’s something we simply disagree on. I believe in a premortal existence, so Adam did exist prior to his earthly state. He was the spirit God breathed into Adam. I’m glad we do agree however on the idea that we are consistent beings.
If God is a universal by himself and can continue concepts by the power of his own will, our continual existence is not an issue.
Maybe. The reason why this comes up though is because all traits of the necessary being must be assumed to also be necessary, including things like locality. If this is what it means to be, then that means that we lack consistency of being. However, I think my Baptist friend was suggesting a solution in the form of what is called accidental properties. A necessary being can’t have accidental properties, but a contingent being can.
While I see how you’ve described another way to interpret a necessary being, and how there can be multiple necessities, you’re still missing the point of what makes multiple necessities even a thing. To get down to a necessary universal, it would have to exist without being defined by anything else. It is one point, by itself. To have multiple necessities which depend on each other – at least to me – either contradicts the meaning of a necessity because they are contingent on each other for their own definitions/way of existing… or it means they have the same core identity/necessary energy, which I would say suggests they are the same God. If their core is the same without any contradictions, I don’t know why you are arguing they aren’t the same Necessity/God.
So one issue I have with discussions like this is that things such as “being” tends to be poorly defined. I’m told that it simply means “to exist” which means the study of ontology. If we assume that a chair exists, therefore saying that a chair is a being, then that means that I can group two people together, and call them one being, since they are just a collection of simples, as a chair is. In that regard, I have no issue with saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one being, in the sense that they all exist, and therefore can be grouped together, but that also means that the whole universe can be said to be one being.
We can say that this is not the case, and come up with a model where a chair is a being, and a person is a being, and they can’t share an ontology. We can also say that chairs don’t exist, since they are only a useful collection of simples. Such a model must be established before conversations like this. I will talk about the other issues you posed here, as they become relevant in later things you’ve said.
One way to see this (which I am exploring without much further thought, so bear with me) is the concept of sets. To assume multiple necessities is to create a set, which I think is kind of what you were aiming for with the complex ontology. But a set is defined by an idea.
Take for example, the concept of a chair. There are millions of chairs in the world, and all of them are seen as chairs for one reason or another. But none of them are the concept of a chair that we all vaguely picture – they are just defined as chairs by requirements, like providing a place to sit, or having a back. I have a feeling you’re already familiar with this.
Like I just said above, having multiple necessities/universal sources implies a set. A necessity isn’t supposed to be within a set by definition. It isn’t supposed to follow a higher rule of what a necessity is – it is its own rule (because it doesn’t flow from anything). So you can’t say the three Persons are their own universals under a complex ontology… unless I’m misunderstanding you for some reason. But I believe this point still stands.
I’m very grateful you brought up the notion of a set, because set theory makes talking about ontology easier by orders of magnitude. It also clarifies the view of mutual contingency. Essentially yes, any ontology, simple and non-simple, is a set, specifically a set of smaller ontologies, simple and non-simple.
When you brought up the example of chairs, it sounds like your thinking of sets of hypostases of some ousia. I’m not thinking about the hypostasis as much of just whether or not an ontology is non-simple. A chair is a complex ontology for example. The question is, can a necessary being be complex? If it can, then that means since the simples also have their own ontology, there can be multiple necessary beings.
Let’s assume though that a necessary being must have a simple ontology, which is what you would need to believe. When it comes to the Trinity, even though I’m saying that I don’t think it can be viewed as simple, you can say that it is simple, and regarding the persons as simple is just a reskinned partialism heresy. Anyways, the thing is, as I’ve said earlier, a single simple alone must also be a set, even if it’s a set of one element. Even if you suggest that it’s an empty set, the empty set is itself used as an element of other sets. So when it comes to set theory, a necessary being would be in a set no matter what, even if it’s alone, or even if it itself is a set.
Now here’s the cool thing with sets. Take the identity element of some set. This would be the one point defined by nothing else you described. Depending on the nature of the set, the identity element’s existence will generate the existence of the rest of the elements of the set. So you might say that this means that all the other elements are contingent on the identity. This is true, but now let’s say one of the later elements simply doesn’t exist. If we do this, then either a new element of the same nature will take its place, or the whole set will be nullified. This means that the whole set is also contingent on that non-identity element. So, the notion of a mathematical set shows that all the elements are both necessary and contingent on each other. Now all we have to do is say that this set necessarily exists. The set didn’t create the elements within it, nor did the elements within it create the set. The set is defined by the elements, and the elements are defined by the set and the identity. What do you worship here? It’s a collectively necessary system.
Before you say that we can’t make a necessary set of many elements, since that means a complex ontology. I’d simply look at mathematics as a whole again. I would argue that mathematics is self sustaining, and uncreated. Yet mathematics, at least conceptually, has an uncountably infinite number of ontologies. Unless that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what math is, where it isn’t even an ontology at all, but that’s another can of worms, and I’d say the point remains. And I understand that since you’re Presbyterian, you will affirm things like God being mathematics/creates mathematics, but that’s just a point of philosophy we will have to disagree on.
As an simple affirmation of this, as I have mentioned before, the Bible stresses one point of truth or being. There is one God to trust, and any other points of trust are worthless. Many of the blessings in the New Testament speak of “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” This speaks of three people to trust who are on total par with each other. But if you look into the Old Testament, the entire thing stresses the existence of one God who does not wish to be worshiped alongside others. Note that I do not believe this God was just God the Father, because often although he pushes the fact that he and he alone saves his people, those who initiated those glorious deeds were often the Spirit and the Angel of Yahweh (who I believe is meant to be interpreted as the preincarnate Christ).
I agree that Yahweh is the preincarnate Christ. It’s true that it’s stressed in the old testament that there is only one God to be worshiped. I simply read that differently though, and I think it changes depending on the context. Sometimes they are spoken of as one God, and other times it’s God the Father who is regarded as God alone, and Christ is the Lord/YHWH. Also, I believe there is truth in the history of the Deuteronomist Reform, though that’s something I’m currently studying, and can’t claim any authority on. But indeed, Christ is in the similitude to the Father, one in goal, will, power, and love. Yet He seeks not His own will, but the will of the Father.
Yes. And just because the atomical makeup of light creates brilliant colors, doesn’t mean we can’t admire the color as the source of itself.
Well for one thing, light doesn’t have atomical makeup, but I get what you were trying to say😂
Okay, that’s a sloppy turn XD What I’m trying to say is that God isn’t just worshiped because he’s a masterpiece. He wants to be admired because he is the only thing to worship, and that is what the Bible sees as a masterpiece. You may say the already existing setting of the universe/logic/etc isn’t worshipable because it doesn’t have a face. This is appeal to emotion, man. Whether or not it has a sense of self (which to me, if it doesn’t, might take away a bit of that universality), the Bible still says there is no other higher power than God and therefore we should worship him, which suggests that any highest power is worthy of worship. According to Biblical values, logic therefore would be worshiped.
I honestly don’t really know what to tell you here. I simply disagree. I don’t think God asks us to worship Him because He is a masterpiece, or because He is the most powerful thing there is. I don’t think God formed us just to glorify Him either. That’s a God that just sounds egotistical in complete frankness. I don’t say that out to be disrespectful, I just can’t look at that in a positive light personally. I believe that God formed us because having children who you can raise and see grow is the most meaningful thing you can do. We worship Him as a child worships their mother. We become humble like unto a child, giving all our devotion and trust in Him. Does a mother demand to be admonished by her children? No, she simply loves them continually, but asks that they would trust and follow her, because she knows better. This is worship, and it is well deserved. As God says in Isaiah 49:15, where a mother may forget, God will not forget us.
I understand that this may frustrate you, as this is essentially very against the Calvinistic view specifically, as you emphasize God’s sovereignty. This is simply what I believe though, and I don’t think that’s in contradiction with scripture. To the ancient Israelite, “all powerful” would simply be the power of a storm. What could be more powerful than that, they would ask. It’s all powerful by all intents and purposes. They wouldn’t think about the materialistic understanding of how exactly powerful God is, they didn’t even think God created ex-nihilo, because they didn’t even have a concept of that, though you might disagree with that final point. This doesn’t mean that God isn’t this cosmic necessary entity, but I just don’t think that’s what they were thinking about at the time.
All this said and done. You keep offering an alternate way to interpret God’s identity. From my point of view, the Trinity is a whole lot more straightforward – though perhaps narrow due to the mystery – and can be interpreted directly from what the Bible teaches. I guess my question is… Why look for round-about ways to reinterpret this, other than for self-edifying purposes? Why is your hypothetical version of God’s identity more plausible than what I’ve pointed out?
This is a great question. Why do I assume my view, and am I just trying to justify something I’ve presupposed, or do I honestly believe this makes the most sense. I admit that I am born and raised in my faith, but something my parents emphasized to me as I’ve grown older is that I need to find my own faith, instead of relying on borrowed light. In my own searching and pondering, I have found this to be the truth, but am on a ongoing conversion, as we all are. To me, it seems far more straight forward that we have a Father in heaven, who is the literal Father of our spirits, who sent His only begotten Son to die for us. They are one in the same manner as everyone else in scripture is one when referred to being one, which is constant throughout scripture. A man must cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh for example. 3 loving individuals working together seems more straightforward to me than an incomprehensible entity that refuses to be defined, being one and not one, praying to itself, submitting to itself, and asking why it has forsaken itself. That’s a classic strawman of Trinitarian theology, I know. Christ is not the Father. But that’s part of the issue. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. That doesn’t work here. There’s a hyperfixation on the fact that they are one, but you don’t even know what way they are one. You can’t understand it, but if you misunderstand it, then you’re a heretic. How is that straight forward?
I’m not seeking to be round about, I’m seeking to understand the text in the context of those who wrote it. Back in the day, this was a heated debate, mostly between Trinitarianism and Arianism. Were the Arianists seeking to be roundabout? Even if they were ultimately wrong, I believe they sincerely thought that that was what was clear in scripture. Trinitarianism is just the view that won out, being standardized at the council of Nicaea.
While I acknowledge the beauty of finding a road less beaten, we shouldn’t prefer scenic routes. I understand you believe in truth as truth, and no theological interpretation can man up to truth. But God has made it clear he wants us to know certain things. And I think one beautiful way that he helps us, is by leaving obvious connections between statements in scripture, leaving us a spiderweb of truth instead of random threads to put together ourselves. He’s left breadcrumbs for the Trinity and the necessity for Jesus to be the same God we worship – that point specially – and I don’t know why you’re still weaving your own spiderweb. You go more and more into the hypothetical – and say we can never know which interpretation is true – without acknowledging what is more viable from a Biblical perspective.
Well here’s the thing. What is the Athanasian creed? The hypostatic union? What is all of this about universals, ontologies, and sets? Is not that all going more and more into the hypothetical? Ideas weaving a new web to explain one’s understanding of the text? The truth is that we are all epistemologically weaving our own web. We are all learning, interpreting, changing, and repeating. We incorporate the bread crumbs in scripture as you point out, after we’ve determined that scripture is worthy of our trust.
I also never said that we can never know which interpretation is true. I believe we can, though I don’t think we can through sola scriptura. You can justify a lot of things with the Bible. You can justify things like slavery, and sexism, and you can justify the opposite. We can fit these things together, but every time we do so, we are applying our own fallible reasoning.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
I accidentally said the wrong thing. I was trying to say that Jesus always did the will of the Father, showing the harmony between the Father and the Son.
Gotcha, that makes more sense.
Very well. Seeing as you have dealt with all this before and you have likely dealt with whatever my response to those arguments will be. From what you and Whaley were saying, it seems you have been through this issue on this sight before. I don’t see a point in arguing this further since you are determined to believe this. I still believe this is a primary issue and still doubt you are saved. It may hurt to hear this, but please know I am saying it because I do not want anyone to think he is saved when he is not. I cannot think of a fate worse than the one described in Matthew 7:21-23 and do not want anyone to fall to it. I hope and pray that one day you will see the importance of correctly understanding the Trinity and come to know God for who he is.
I once again am grateful for your care. To be fair though, if you’re right, then I don’t have a choice in the matter. God has simply chosen to leave me in my sinful state. I do not mind that you believe I’m not saved. Members of my faith are told that every moment of their lives. If you are right, then that’s just the lot God gave us. If that’s what God has chosen for me, then I can do nothing but accept that.
I like to have these discussions because I do legitimately learn a lot from them, and I like to challenge and test my faith. I don’t seek to argue, or prove my position, as I’ve made sure to establish clearly in my last response. I’m sorry you don’t see future discussion as fruitful, sometimes that is the way it is. I’ve had very fruitful discussions with people I disagree with, and others we could do nothing but argue and get no-where. Our discussion just started, but it can be wise to end things when you realize there is no ultimate point.
I’m sorry you must to take the position of ‘join us or die’, but I bear no ill will to you for it, since I know you’re doing your best with what you have. I hope we can still continue chatting about writing, and have fun conversations. Till then, God bless.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.