Non-Trinitarian Monotheism

[RootBoy42]

I have a theory (not originally mine, but I have given it a lot of thought and I want to present it here) that non-trinitarian monotheists (NTMT) have a fundamental flaw in that aspect of their theology. I wanted to present it here and see if it holds up.

First , Is God a contingent or non-contingent being (ie does his existence depend on anything else before it).
I would have to say (and I think most NTMTs would agree) No, He is not.
Second, Is God a God of Love (or put a different way, is He relational)? Again, I would think that most NTMTs would agree with me and say that yes He is.
Now comes my real question: If God is a Non-Contingent Being and also a relational being (ie able to love) who is the object of His love?
We cannot say that we are the (sole) object of that love, because that would indicate that there is some aspect of His Being that requires us, thus making Him a contingent Being.
If that is the case, then the object of His Love must be within Himeslf, and he must therefore have multiple aspects within Himself for that relationship to exist.
Now, I know that this does not prove "Trinity," we have to go to scripture to get there (and I think we can use just the Old Testament for it too) but I think it does strongly suggest (if not prove) that God has "aspects" that are part of Himself while still retaining a single personhood.

Any thoughts? Criticisms? Rebuttals?

Root

[shunyadragon]

I have a theory (not originally mine, but I have given it a lot of thought and I want to present it here) that non-trinitarian monotheists (NTMT) have a fundamental flaw in that aspect of their theology. I wanted to present it here and see if it holds up.

First , Is God a contingent or non-contingent being (ie does his existence depend on anything else before it).
I would have to say (and I think most NTMTs would agree) No, He is not.
Second, Is God a God of Love (or put a different way, is He relational)? Again, I would think that most NTMTs would agree with me and say that yes He is.

Okay so far regardless of whether God is trinitarian or non-trinitarian., but my argument would propose that God's nature and relationship with his creation is not contingent on a fallible human worldview defining this relationship.

Now comes my real question: If God is a Non-Contingent Being and also a relational being (ie able to love) who is the object of His love?

We cannot say that we are the (sole) object of that love, because that would indicate that there is some aspect of His Being that requires us, thus making Him a contingent Being.

True, from my worldview as a non-trinitarian the object of God's (not His) love is existence. We are a part of existence living on a blue, green, white and brown marble in the remote corner of a bust bunny in the vasteness of existence we call our universe.

If that is the case, then the object of His Love must be within Himeslf, and he must therefore have multiple aspects within Himself for that relationship to exist.

Here is where we differ. In a more humble view I will not try and define how God 'must' define God's relationship with creation or humanity. God's Love need not be within or without God's self, as these would be human constructs as what is 'within' or 'without' anything. You use words like 'must' to define the nature of an omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite God, which is beyond the comprehension of any single worldview of the fallible human worldview. If God chose to relate to God's creation in monotarian, quadtarian or any multipletarian relationship, what would prevent God from doing so?

Now, I know that this does not prove "Trinity," we have to go to scripture to get there (and I think we can use just the Old Testament for it too)

The OT alone is not much help, because Jews using besically the same scripture disagree strongly.

Christians primarilly rely on the NT, particularly Paul to support the trinitarian view of God, and than use this to support their interpretation of the OT.

. . . but I think it does strongly suggest (if not prove) that God has "aspects" that are part of Himself while still retaining a single personhood.

No.

[Jubilate Deo]

I have a theory (not originally mine, but I have given it a lot of thought and I want to present it here) that non-trinitarian monotheists (NTMT) have a fundamental flaw in that aspect of their theology. I wanted to present it here and see if it holds up.

First , Is God a contingent or non-contingent being (ie does his existence depend on anything else before it).
I would have to say (and I think most NTMTs would agree) No, He is not.
Second, Is God a God of Love (or put a different way, is He relational)? Again, I would think that most NTMTs would agree with me and say that yes He is.
Now comes my real question: If God is a Non-Contingent Being and also a relational being (ie able to love) who is the object of His love?
We cannot say that we are the (sole) object of that love, because that would indicate that there is some aspect of His Being that requires us, thus making Him a contingent Being.
If that is the case, then the object of His Love must be within Himeslf, and he must therefore have multiple aspects within Himself for that relationship to exist.
Now, I know that this does not prove "Trinity," we have to go to scripture to get there (and I think we can use just the Old Testament for it too) but I think it does strongly suggest (if not prove) that God has "aspects" that are part of Himself while still retaining a single personhood.

Any thoughts? Criticisms? Rebuttals?

Root

I agree with you... you can also see how family relationships on earth (particularly between the husband + wife) mirror the love of the Trinity

[shunyadragon]

I agree with you... you can also see how family relationships on earth (particularly between the husband + wife) mirror the love of the Trinity

How would the love between a husband and wife mirror the love of the Trinity? That's a bigger stretch than Rootboy42. God's love for God's creation does indeed mirror the love of the parents for their children, but that does not necessatate God being a trinity.

Don't hold your breath for Rootboy42 to respond.