tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2458731447613154355..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Defining the TrinityRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35694882673031578862019-11-19T13:15:01.901-05:002019-11-19T13:15:01.901-05:00I take issue with grounding the oneness of God in ...I take issue with grounding the oneness of God in unity of desire. First, there is an ambiguity as to the "unity" of this desire. Saying "there is no conflict whatsoever," does not mean there is numerically one desire instantiated in all three Persons. Neither does it mean the three Persons share a singular ontic principle of desire. Rather, it simply means the desire [desires?] of the three Persons cohere.<br /><br />The trouble is that this is not enough unity for monotheism, or rather, this kind of unity is one compatible with multiple beings and therefore, incompatible with [because insufficient for] Trinitarianism. Two humans could potentially have perfectly collaborative desires. For example, a Sioux nomad and a Chinese carpenter might be said to have demonstrated compatible desires, since their ends do not require them to come at odds with each other, but this is trivially true on account of a vast spatial distance. Presumably, the elect will all experience desires that cohere with each other on the whole, and so that might be another example. All this to say, coherence of desire is not a sufficient condition of persons being united as one being.Necessitarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07282263769391763493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19380871675353728882018-05-23T18:56:15.206-04:002018-05-23T18:56:15.206-04:00Makes sense! Thanks Steve!Makes sense! Thanks Steve!solideogloria09021995https://www.blogger.com/profile/11235435193435769051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22015213350525138392018-05-23T10:25:53.466-04:002018-05-23T10:25:53.466-04:00If God is timeless, then there's no change in ...If God is timeless, then there's no change in relation to God. God is not on a timeline where the Incarnation is later than the Exodus, which is later than creation, which is later than pre-creation, in relation to God. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35417894595769618752018-05-23T08:53:57.323-04:002018-05-23T08:53:57.323-04:00"Now a union is a relation. And relations new..."Now a union is a relation. And relations newly said of God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on God's side, but on the creature's side by relating in a new way to God."<br /><br />But isn't there a sense in which on God relates in a new way to a creature, implying a change on God's part too? So, for example, going from not-Creator to Creator?<br /><br />solideogloria09021995https://www.blogger.com/profile/11235435193435769051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45229842313233800002018-05-22T08:41:58.359-04:002018-05-22T08:41:58.359-04:00I applaud this - getting off one's heresy-hunt...I applaud this - getting off one's heresy-hunting high horse in order to stick one's own neck out, saying how one understands some unclear and controversial traditions. Stay tuned for a blog post on this.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24850896327157690692018-05-22T02:58:23.795-04:002018-05-22T02:58:23.795-04:00I am toying with an idea. The threeness of God is ...I am toying with an idea. The threeness of God is internal. They see each other as persons. To us, however, they are one, in a way analogous to the way a family is one (though imperfectly, because of sin). <br /><br />The oneness is based on unity of desire. There is no conflict whatsoever. For all intents and purposes, to mankind, God is one. However, they are three, numerically. Yet, "socially", they are one.<br />Christoffer Skuthällahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01145482967495030026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48242144028769650392018-05-21T20:09:34.912-04:002018-05-21T20:09:34.912-04:00i) The Bible is fairly indifferent to what names p...i) The Bible is fairly indifferent to what names people use in referring to the Deity. After all, Theos and El/Elohim are names of pagan origin. <br /><br />For that matter, Scripture doesn't say "God" or "Lord". Those are English synonyms or substitutes. This is a fairly neutral issue that missionaries and Bible translators routinely deal with. There's no obligation to imitate biblical usage. Otherwise, we'd be using Greek and Hebrew titles for God.<br /><br />Mind you, there are situations in which that's fine, viz. Yahweh (although the pronunciation is disputed). <br /><br />In Isa 54:5 and Jer 31:32, Scripture even trades on the Baal double entendre, in a bit of polemical theology, where Yahweh is the true Baal to Israel. <br /><br />In Scripture, the issue isn't so much *how* the Deity is referred to but *what* Deity is referred to. What's the concept that stands behind that verbal token? <br /><br />ii) If Scripture implies that each Person (Father, Son, and Spirit) is individually divine, then it's appropriate to use a general divine designation when referring to all three. That's simply a matter of logic. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67774895418022197322018-05-21T17:19:04.880-04:002018-05-21T17:19:04.880-04:00Er no. Try Elohim. You seem to have limited knowle...Er no. Try Elohim. You seem to have limited knowledge of how the word God is used in the bible.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06882636190759154653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51952300047376575382018-05-21T16:55:00.714-04:002018-05-21T16:55:00.714-04:00Well, whatever argument I'm talking about... t...Well, whatever argument I'm talking about... that's not the point. I want to use language in a similar fashion as you guys, but if the word "God" is never used in the way you guys use it, how is it justified? It's not like the word "trinity"... that's a concept. The Word "God" is in the Bible, and you guys seem to use it differently than the Bible and that concerns me.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04421648159077919094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44493270291256128522018-05-21T16:35:13.594-04:002018-05-21T16:35:13.594-04:00The bible doesn't contain the word bible. So w...The bible doesn't contain the word bible. So what.<br /><br />You are doing a stabdard muslim trick of saying "where does the bible say God is 3 in one"? Well God doesnt have to fit into your neat little linguistic box.<br /><br />In Matthew 28:19 we clearly have the trinity as Jesus conflates Father, Son and Holy Spirit.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06882636190759154653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61824732244028547142018-05-21T16:31:22.846-04:002018-05-21T16:31:22.846-04:00My argument wasn't predicated on that usage.My argument wasn't predicated on that usage. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88552865129007695952018-05-21T16:20:39.243-04:002018-05-21T16:20:39.243-04:00I understand you perfectly, but where does the Bib...I understand you perfectly, but where does the Bible use the word "God" to refer to the three persons as a collective whole? It seems that the word "God" is primarily given to the Father, and sometimes to the Son, but never to all three at the same time (i.e. using the term "God" to signify more than one person of the Trinity at once).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04421648159077919094noreply@blogger.com