Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question about the Trinity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    It allows for God to be an inanimate object like a chair.
    No it doesn't. You're still making the same mistake of taking a subset of something and applying it to the whole set. Being denotes everything that has existence. Inanimate objects like rocks, or chairs, are only a subset of all beings. Sentient entities (and even the word entity encompasses such things as rocks and chairs, so using it doesn't even avoid the problem you're trying to avoid) is another subset. But there is no overlap between these two subsets. You can have a being that belongs to the subset of inanimate objects, or you can have a being that belongs to the subset of sentient entities, but just because something belongs to one of the subsets, and therefore belongs to the greater set doesn't mean it therefore also belongs to the other subset.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      No it doesn't. You're still making the same mistake of taking a subset of something and applying it to the whole set. Being denotes everything that has existence. Inanimate objects like rocks, or chairs, are only a subset of all beings. Sentient entities (and even the word entity encompasses such things as rocks and chairs, so using it doesn't even avoid the problem you're trying to avoid) is another subset. But there is no overlap between these two subsets. You can have a being that belongs to the subset of inanimate objects, or you can have a being that belongs to the subset of sentient entities, but just because something belongs to one of the subsets, and therefore belongs to the greater set doesn't mean it therefore also belongs to the other subset.
      I am not going to argue with you about it. To everyone today, being does not include inanimate objects. I couldn't care less what the ancient greeks claimed. My point is that using a definition of 'being' that includes anything that exists does not make the explanation of the Trinity easier to understand. It just doesn't.

      Jaxb was asking what the difference between a being and a person is. Joel's answer: well being can be anything that exists. how does that help Jaxb?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        I am not going to argue with you about it. To everyone today, being does not include inanimate objects. I couldn't care less what the ancient greeks claimed. My point is that using a definition of 'being' that includes anything that exists does not make the explanation of the Trinity easier to understand. It just doesn't.
        I'm more interested in accuracy than I am in making something easier to understand. "Everyone today" also conflate being with person, so perhaps the modern understanding of the word being is faulty, and needs to be corrected?

        And how "everyone today" understands the word being today is really of no consequence at all. The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the time of the ancient Church, therefore the words should be understood in the sense they were understood then, and not how they are understood now.

        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Jaxb was asking what the difference between a being and a person is. Joel's answer: well being can be anything that exists. how does that help Jaxb?
        It should help him immensely, because it shows him exactly how to differentiate between a being (something that exists) and personhood (an attribute which a being can have).

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          I'm more interested in accuracy than I am in making something easier to understand. "Everyone today" also conflate being with person, so perhaps the modern understanding of the word being is faulty, and needs to be corrected?

          And how "everyone today" understands the word being today is really of no consequence at all. The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the time of the ancient Church, therefore the words should be understood in the sense they were understood then, and not how they are understood now.



          It should help him immensely, because it shows him exactly how to differentiate between a being (something that exists) and personhood (an attribute which a being can have).
          yeesh. smh.

          I don't think he doubts that God is something that exists.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            yeesh. smh.

            I don't think he doubts that God is something that exists.
            I don't doubt that either. But it's that very "something that exists" which the word being denotes. Just because it doesn't make it easier to understand doesn't mean it isn't true.

            That doesn't mean there isn't more to it than that, however. But that would require one to introduce the concept of essence (the thing that makes something that something, i.e it's nature) and how in God essence has actual existence, which is his being.

            But I'm not sure how saying that being in the statement "God is three persons in one being" is the same as essence, which is the same as "that which makes God, God" is going to help Jaxb clear up his confusion.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              I don't doubt that either. But it's that very "something that exists" which the word being denotes. Just because it doesn't make it easier to understand doesn't mean it isn't true.

              That doesn't mean there isn't more to it than that, however. But that would require one to introduce the concept of essence (the thing that makes something that something, i.e it's nature) and how in God essence has actual existence, which is his being.

              But I'm not sure how saying that being in the statement "God is three persons in one being" is the same as essence, which is the same as "that which makes God, God" is going to help Jaxb clear up his confusion.
              well first of all "God is three persons in one being" is not correct. It is "one God, revealed in three persons" - your sentence describes one being being composed of 3 persons as in 1/3 of each.

              I don't recall any ancient creed even using "being"

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                well first of all "God is three persons in one being" is not correct. It is "one God, revealed in three persons" - your sentence describes one being being composed of 3 persons as in 1/3 of each.

                I don't recall any ancient creed even using "being"
                I think homoousia can be translated as "one in being".

                Tbh I think it's more common to use the word "essence" rather than "being", so it would be "Thee person sharing (fully) in one essence". But in classical theism God's "essence" and "being" are one, so the words can be used interchangeably atleast in some contexts.

                But I do agree that saying "God is three persons in one being" can open you up to misinterpretation unless you specify that all of the persons share fully in the Divine Being/Essence, and not just in 1/3rd of it each.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  I think homoousia can be translated as "one in being".

                  Tbh I think it's more common to use the word "essence" rather than "being", so it would be "Thee person sharing (fully) in one essence". But in classical theism God's "essence" and "being" are one, so the words can be used interchangeably atleast in some contexts.

                  But I do agree that saying "God is three persons in one being" can open you up to misinterpretation unless you specify that all of the persons share fully in the Divine Being/Essence, and not just in 1/3rd of it each.
                  the original argument by joel was that the ancient greeks used "being" to mean "something that exists" - as if he were explaining why 'being' should be interpreted that way now, but in fact, I don't know of any ancient descriptions of the Trinity that used "being" - they used "essence" as you pointed out. And "essence" isn't even a physical property like "something that exists" would be. So again, it was not helpful to explain the trinity. That was my original point.

                  Being in this thread is just someone trying to explain that there is one God (a being or entity that is singular and unique) who is revealed in three persons.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    the original argument by joel was that the ancient greeks used "being" to mean "something that exists" - as if he were explaining why 'being' should be interpreted that way now, but in fact, I don't know of any ancient descriptions of the Trinity that used "being" - they used "essence" as you pointed out.
                    We may need to find out what is the history of "one being". Perhaps it isn't as old as I thought.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Okay, you guys are right, it does seems that the traditional term is "essence" (Greek: ousia), not "being". So the question should be what is the difference between "essence" and "person".

                      I wonder where "one being" came from.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        God said "...let us make [man] in our image and in our likeness...". Jesus is this expressed image, a [man] in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily according to the scriptures. Question: to whom was God speaking in the beginning when He said "...let us..."?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          An atom is a single unit that works in 3 as well. That's one way of seeing the paradox. Proton, neutron, electron. Electromagnetism.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            You realize that modalism is a heresy, right?
                            The OP did not advocate Modalism. To do so, he would have to have reduced the Divine Persons to expressions of the - undifferentiated - Divine Nature, so as to abolish the distinction of Persons - something he did not do. That they are “diverse according to substantial relation”, requires Modalism to be false, not true.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              I think homoousia can be translated as "one in being".

                              Tbh I think it's more common to use the word "essence" rather than "being", so it would be "Thee person sharing (fully) in one essence". But in classical theism God's "essence" and "being" are one, so the words can be used interchangeably atleast in some contexts.

                              But I do agree that saying "God is three persons in one being" can open you up to misinterpretation unless you specify that all of the persons share fully in the Divine Being/Essence, and not just in 1/3rd of it each.
                              St Thomas Aquinas would not agree - one of his earliest works is De Ente et Essentia, “On Being and Essence”.

                              Video discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAZtWY7ktF8

                              Book in translation: https://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/Bl...ofs/MP_C30.pdf

                              Very brief explanation: http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/essencex.html

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X