Can you state what you understand as a Trinity or Trinitarian doctrine?
Even more absurd…
I believe in an infinite God. The gap between God and man is therefore rather profound. But I don’t agree with this enslaved lobotomized god of many theologies. I believe in a God who is more than we are and not less than we are in any way whatsoever.
Ditto - plus xtra characters.
I was referring to his description of your position.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but only one God. The number three has nothing to do with it. These are simply the three persons we know as God. But to equate our knowledge of God with the limits and totality of God is absurd.
The doctrine of simplicity and difficulties encountered has been discussed, as for example by
O’Connor, Timothy (1999) “Simplicity and Creation,” Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of
Christian Philosophers: Vol. 16 : Iss. 3 , Article 8. His conclusion is:
“I have tried to show how the simplicity theorist can make out an account of
God’s contingent, purposive agency in creation. Even if I have been successful,
an important worry remains about the apparent complexity of reason
states on the second model. (On it, remember, God has any number of distinct
reasons for creating a variety of different possible worlds.) This is just a
special case of the more general worry about how to render intelligible the
idea that simplicity is compatible with a “richness” of nature in virtue of
which it is meaningful to speak of “(absolute) power,” “knowledge,” and a
host of other attributes in relation to such a being. I will have to leave this
very perplexing matter as an unresolved puzzle for the committed simplicity
theorist - here I’ve merely tried to leave the simplicity doctrine in a little
better shape than I found it.”
1 Like
We are limited in many ways and this should not be attributed to God. I have given a reference (previous post) that discusses some of the difficulties with the metaphysical simplicity doctrine.
My use of ‘a thing’ merely means he can have recognized attributes that we can describe as we can other things, and my thoughts are pretty much exactly like Merriam-Webster’s definition 2.b.1 and in no way demeaning to the reality of who God is nor an unusual use of the word:
a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
1 2.c. isn’t wrong either:
the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
To suggest that God can divest himself of his essential attributes (for instance, the aforementioned attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience) is equally as absurd as to suggest that a tree can be divested of its association with wood. Equating our acknowledgement of his possession of those attributes as limiting God in those ways is also absurd.
1 Like
It’s kind of like saying that a track team has sprinters and javelin throwers and high jumpers and thinking that means there are no distance runners or discus throwers.
1 Like
That too. 
And what if what we call God is beyond thinginess, and is in fact the ground of all things?
1 Like
He is not beyond being an entity about whom we can ascribe attributes.
1 Like
Thank you, Mark, for your agreement.
It is not difficult to know GOD. GOD is Love. I know no statement of fact which is more clear and obvious, but being so clear and obvious makes one think that it must be wrong, but it is not.
It is also an experiential fact. When I love and am loved I experience GOD and therefore know that GOD is real for myself. It is not arrogant to share what one has experienced.
GOD is the GOD Who RELATES. GOD is Who GOD IS, because GOD is LOVE.
1 Like
Mitchell,
Sorry to pull you back to this post after such a long time. I finally had time to look back over your other posts in this thread and see if you addressed the questions I still had.
I’m not sure the analogy with the pastors helps me, so I will leave it alone. I would rather avoid critical analysis of yet another analogy.
These are some of the things I think I understand you to be saying in the post above and in others:
-
Focusing on the “threeness” of the Trinity is a limitation we impose on God himself and/or on our own understanding of God. There may be other persons we are unaware of that comprise the person of God, so we cannot make a claim that it are only “three.”
-
Many of the theological statements we make about God, based on what we understand from the Bible are too limited, because there are things we simply do not know about God – things beyond what is described in the Bible.
-
You mention a number of times God being dynamic as opposed to being an unchanging thing that people can exploit. Do you see God as limiting himself in the ways he changes in order to maintain his nature or character? I guess, more openly, how (if at all) does God maintain his nature or character, while being dynamic?
Thanks,
Kendel
1 Like
Yes focusing on the threeness of the Trinity is a limitation we impose on God by equating our knowledge of God with the totality of God.
Well yeah… the Bible may be sufficient for salvation but certainly not to provide complete knowledge of the universe and God… of course not.
I think we mustn’t use theology to limit God, saying God cannot do things because it contradicts our definitions in theology. I think it is absurd to use terms like “omnipotent,” “omniscient,” and “omnipresent” (which are about God’s lack of limitations) to limit God and say He cannot do things which contradict them. It is not about the Bible because these words are not in the Bible. That sort of theology is completely our invention. But I think the real problem is these terms are not used in a logically coherent manner.
There is the classic question of whether God can make a rock so heavy that even God cannot lift it. The tradition is to say God cannot do this because it contradicts God’s omnipotence. But I think that is the greater contradiction, making this attribute from theology a limit upon God Himself. I say that God CAN create such a rock, because God can impose limitations on Himself and sacrifice power for the sake of things He wants. I think the incarnation is an example of this. I think God chooses love and freedom over power and control. And the incarnation is just an example of how God will give up power for the sake of love and relationship. I think His creation of life and free will is another example of this.
I do see God as limiting Himself. But I don’t see maintaining “his nature or character” to be a reason for it. I simply think God chooses love and freedom over power and control, and God will sacrifice perfect power or knowledge for the sake of an authentic relationship of love with us. I think this is one of the important things the incarnation demonstrated to us.
I think the sacrifice of power and control is an inherent part of making a relationship with someone else, as are taking a risk, giving trust, and having faith.
This seems like a strange question to me. How do YOU maintain your nature or character while being dynamic? Don’t we simply try to remain true to the things which are important to us. If these things require us to change our nature or character then wouldn’t we do that if we can for the things which are most important?
Frankly it seems to me this need for maintaining God’s nature or character is coming from religious people and not from God. It is their attempt to control God. It is like a game of dominance played by people telling others what they are and what they can or cannot do in order to put them in their place.
2 Likes
I very much agree and would emphasize that while we try to remain true to what is important to us, doing that is essentially part of God’s nature. Seeing how our values apply in any situation requires experience and skill as well as self knowledge regarding self limitations. There are probably good reasons why God would consistently remain true to His nature but it doesn’t follow that we’re in any position to understand how or why. I agree it is a bit absurd to box God in to conform to our understanding when that is more limited than that which we’d like to understand.
I suppose the real thrust of theology is to articulate an expert appraisal of who God is and what if anything He would like from us. Some probably would appreciate such an appraisal along with the most transparent justification possible.
“Omnipotent” is; it’s a translation of the Greek Παντοκράτωρ (pan-toh-KRA-tore) – though the commonly taken meaning of the word is not accurate.
“Omniscient” may not be there as a word, but there are a number of places in the scriptures that say God knows all things, also that He sees all created things (which is not quite the same thing but is closely related).
“Omnipresent” is the toughest one; it has some support from the Psalms and a bit from the prophets, though the strongest is from Ephesians, “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all”.
It comes from statements in the scriptures, actually. When we are told that God is Truth, the implication is that He cannot lie, for example. It also rests on the continuous theme that God is faithful; a deity who could go against his own character would not be faithful.
Perhaps He knows all things by virtue of being present alongside within each being no matter how high or low. Whatever is known He would be privy to. Even if He has an existence apart, I suspect it is His being in relation to every being that matters most to us.
Exactly.
1 Like
I don’t think that means anything of the sort.
That is not what we mean when we say something is truth, and it is not what we say when we mean someone cannot lie.
The only passage I am finding is John 4:16 “I am the way, the truth, and the light.” And the meaning is that Jesus brings an (even the best) answer to man’s search for truth and meaning. It is not about whether Jesus is capable of telling a lie.
No. I don’t think that is what the word “faithful” means. It is certainly not about God’s enslavement to theological descriptions. It means God follows through on his promises… even giving far more than the what the terms of the promise actually require because we never fulfill our end of it. It means He is a good friend – a better friend even that we are to ourselves.
And I would say its God’s choice. His nature is not some theological definition but His decision about what kind of person He wants to be. I am very wary of legalistic type arguments to fabricate some sort entitlement of religious people – to say God must do what they want Him to do.