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

  • #61
    Originally posted by hoghead
    Modalism has been denounced as a heresy, true. However, all "heresy" really means is that a particular idea does not square with he teaching of a particular church. It has nothing to do with the actual validity of teh concepts labeled heretical. Many "heretics" were proven right in the end. If you come right down to it, just about everyone has ben or can be labeled a heretic. The Protestant Reformers labeled the Catholics (Papists) as all heretics and followers of the Anti-Christ. The Catholic Church labeled teh Protestants as all heretics, and so on, and so on, throughout history.
    The "heresy" charge against modalism goes back to Tertullian. Actually, he seemed largely concerned with the fact Sabellius was crediting the Father with suffering. big no-no, as it was assumed God could not suffer. And, interestingly enough, Tertullian comes close to modalism in his psychological model of the Trinity, where he likens the Father's relationship to the Son as analogous to the inner dialogue we have between ourselves and our Reason. Both Augustine and also Calvin proposed psychological models of the Trinity as well.
    Today, many Christians are "modalistic." So the "heresy" notion has been dropped in many quarters and seems a bit old-fashioned.
    You talk a lot without actually saying anything.

    From your answer to Bill, it sounds like you are a bit out there on your idea of God, yourself. What did you mean by "personalities" and "subjective" in your answer to him? You seem a bit modalistic yourself in that answer. Do you think that God has one objective personality and plays "subjective" roles as the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? Because that is what it sounds like you were saying.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by hoghead
      Then you fail to have paid any attention to anything I said and know little of teh history of the Trinity.
      Yes, because I was responding to . . .
      The Trinity is a very complex theological issue, probably one of the most complex in Christendom. . . . "
      The "Trinity" is one conclusion to all that. It is one understanding of what you discribed as a very complex theological issue. The underderstanding the term "Trinity" is the name of one explanation. So it is I said, "Then you fail to understand that the 'Trinity' is the solution not the problem." In any case you were not using the term that way, as the name of that one view/understanding/solution.
      Last edited by 37818; 07-21-2016, 08:19 AM.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by hoghead
        And, interestingly enough, Tertullian comes close to modalism in his psychological model of the Trinity, where he likens the Father's relationship to the Son as analogous to the inner dialogue we have between ourselves and our Reason.
        I find problematic the argument which you are ascribing to Tertullian, and I have also found that Christians on this forum (or at least on tektonics) seem to adopt that same argument. It is problematic because it implies that the Father doesn't have reason on his own.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
          I find problematic the argument which you are ascribing to Tertullian, and I have also found that Christians on this forum (or at least on tektonics) seem to adopt that same argument. It is problematic because it implies that the Father doesn't have reason on his own.
          I don't think the Trinity has three reasons any more than it has three wills. Hence it's perfectly OK to use a psychological model that identifies the Son with reason. Indeed the Logos represents reason. The psychological model is a common one. Augustine is probably the best known for it in the West. Typically the West uses psychological models and the East social models. Both are orthodox. The standards are designed to allow both.

          The treatment of the Trinity in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses a term that is helpful here. It speaks of one-self and three-self models of the Trinity. Both types can be orthodox, but one-self models are most common in the West. That explains why you're accustomed to seeing psychological models here and on tektonics.

          Comment


          • #65
            Edited by a Moderator

            Moderated By: Bill the Cat

            This is not the area to deny the Trinity.

            ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
            Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

            Last edited by Bill the Cat; 10-03-2018, 11:39 AM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
              What would be the difference between a being and a person?
              A being is just something that exists. A rock is a being. A tree is a being. But neither of those is a person.
              I think people get confused because they think "a being" means "a sentient being".


              Then what is one being? Is a rock one being, or multiple beings (e.g. atoms)? A rock is a compound being; it can be broken into two, smaller, rocks which may exist independently of the other. Traditional Christian theology holds that God is a simple being, meaning God cannot possibly be separated into multiple sub-beings, like an absolutely elementary particle which cannot possibly be further subdivided. A simple being is unambiguously "one being."

              None of this precludes that (one) being from having three persons. Rather it implies that the three persons cannot be separated into separate beings. And that no one (or two) of them could possibly exist without the other(s). It is necessary that all three exists, or none exists. Thus their existence (i.e. being) is one.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                A being is just something that exists. A rock is a being. A tree is a being. But neither of those is a person.
                I think people get confused because they think "a being" means "a sentient being".


                Then what is one being? Is a rock one being, or multiple beings (e.g. atoms)? A rock is a compound being; it can be broken into two, smaller, rocks which may exist independently of the other. Traditional Christian theology holds that God is a simple being, meaning God cannot possibly be separated into multiple sub-beings, like an absolutely elementary particle which cannot possibly be further subdivided. A simple being is unambiguously "one being."

                None of this precludes that (one) being from having three persons. Rather it implies that the three persons cannot be separated into separate beings. And that no one (or two) of them could possibly exist without the other(s). It is necessary that all three exists, or none exists. Thus their existence (i.e. being) is one.
                Rocks are not beings. They are things.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Rocks are not beings. They are things.
                  As philosophers use the term, "a being" is synonymous with "an existent"--something that "is" (or "has being").

                  The word comes from the participle of the verb "to be" (as "jumping" is to "to jump"). "A being" takes the participle substantively: anything that is be-ing.

                  The concept comes from ancient greek philosophers generalizing to larger and larger categories, until you get a category that includes everything that exists. In which, the only thing that they all have in common is that they have being.

                  It is true that sometimes English speakers use "a being" to refer only to a "living being" or a "sentient being". But the older Christian theologians (working in Latin and Greek) had in mind the general philosophical category of beings, including inanimate beings.

                  For example, here is a section from Aquinas' Summa Theologica (I.44) in which there are many references to beings. This happens to be a discussion about how every being (i.e. every thing that exists) comes from God.
                  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1044.htm

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Joel View Post
                    As philosophers use the term, "a being" is synonymous with "an existent"--something that "is" (or "has being").

                    The word comes from the participle of the verb "to be" (as "jumping" is to "to jump"). "A being" takes the participle substantively: anything that is be-ing.

                    The concept comes from ancient greek philosophers generalizing to larger and larger categories, until you get a category that includes everything that exists. In which, the only thing that they all have in common is that they have being.

                    It is true that sometimes English speakers use "a being" to refer only to a "living being" or a "sentient being". But the older Christian theologians (working in Latin and Greek) had in mind the general philosophical category of beings, including inanimate beings.

                    For example, here is a section from Aquinas' Summa Theologica (I.44) in which there are many references to beings. This happens to be a discussion about how every being (i.e. every thing that exists) comes from God.
                    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1044.htm
                    I think your use of 'being' to be 'anything in existence' is just making it more confusing to explain the Trinity.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      I think your use of 'being' to be 'anything in existence' is just making it more confusing to explain the Trinity.
                      Confusing as it may be that is still how the word has traditionally been defined when used to speak about the Trinity.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        Confusing as it may be that is still how the word has traditionally been defined when used to speak about the Trinity.
                        no. God is not a thing. He is a sentient entity.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          no. God is not a thing. He is a sentient entity.
                          Chrawnus is correct, that when traditional theologians have referred to the trinity as one being and three persons, "being" meant existent (including both "sentient entities" and inanimate "things", both material existents and spiritual existents, etc.).

                          You suggest that,
                          I think your use of 'being' to be 'anything in existence' is just making it more confusing to explain the Trinity.
                          but the question is: what was meant by the term "being" as it is used in the traditional formulation of the Trinity. That's the question I'm answering.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            no. God is not a thing. He is a sentient entity.
                            the word being encompasses both (inanimate) things and sentient entities. Your objection is like complaining that dogs can't be mammals because they're canids.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Joel View Post
                              Chrawnus is correct, that when traditional theologians have referred to the trinity as one being and three persons, "being" meant existent (including both "sentient entities" and inanimate "things", both material existents and spiritual existents, etc.).

                              You suggest that,

                              but the question is: what was meant by the term "being" as it is used in the traditional formulation of the Trinity. That's the question I'm answering.
                              One entity: One God.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                                the word being encompasses both (inanimate) things and sentient entities. Your objection is like complaining that dogs can't be mammals because they're canids.
                                It allows for God to be an inanimate object like a chair.

                                Comment

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