|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Does Scripture support the Trinity?
|
peaceheretic
Apprentice
# 9483
|
Posted
It would be ungracious and unChristlike to direct my provisional response to any one poster.
However, I have no fear of quoting :-
"Christ could have been born a thousand times in Galilee,
But all in vain, 'til He is Born in me."
and as the venerable and scholarly Rev F.G. Downing once wrote, or words to this effect; we should all retain the humility to bear in mind that on that last day we might find out that we were all wrong.
So maybe I am wrong.
But if anybody doesn't know that bit of scripture I was quoting about Thomas/Didymus speaking his original Christianity to all of us who wish to continue learning (that's all Christians.... isn't it?) here it is from an ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION translation :-
John 11 v 16 'So Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him." '
Now since it doesn't mean what I thought it meant, because I am wrong, please correct my error. What does it mean?
Shalomheretic
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
for the sake of our children recognise this hour's need,
worship and live the message stop worshipping the creed.
Posts: 9 | From: Darwen, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
/me bringing forth ancient scrolls
What do these verses mean?
being born in human likeness
with a face like a human face
for God is not like a human being
the Sabbath was made for man
teaching human percepts
who is like the wise man?
do not curse the king
the heart of the wise inclines to the right
if the iron is blunt
but wisdom helps one to succeed
consider the work of God
a good name is better than precious ointment
the house of mourning
the wind blows to the south
the simple believe everything
the wise woman builds her house
poverty and disgrace are for the one who ignores instruction
they are like a breath
oh God, what is man that you regard him?
Are these verses talking about a specific iron, king, man, wind, work of God, wise decision, wise man, human face, human being, name, simple man, house, wise woman etc?
According to these verses all 'wise women', 'irons', 'kings' 'men', 'winds', 'wise decisions' etc are one. They are talking about one kind, one iron, one wind etc
Why is this?
It's because we all understand what "man", "iron", "king", "wind", "god" is.
We all have a definition in mind. These verses are talking about that definition; they are talking about all the individual 'irons', 'winds', 'men', 'kings'. They are talking about the "kingship", the "what-makes-iron-to-be-iron-and-not-water", the "what-makes-man-to-be-man-and-not-donkey" etc
They presume that man is one, i.e. that human nature is one. That there is one king, i.e. all 'kings' share the same kingship, meaning that they are all equally 'kings'. No one is 'more king' than the other. There is no "who is a king" question for them? They all share the same kingship. Even if they rule different kingdoms. Just like the wind. There is no wind "more wind" than another wind. All 'winds' are windy with the same way.
This is what Aristotle calls "nature", or "essence.
This concept is accepted by the philosophers of the antiquity. For example, Socrates wants to find out what "virtue is", or what "bravery is". According to them, virtue is one, bravery is one.
OK, I am not going to bring those scrolls after all. Too lazy to search for ancient documents in my library. But I will sum up some of the sources that explain this attitude.
You have already what Gregory wrote to Ablabious. He says that it is wrong for us to say that "there are many men". It's only a custom, and it does not make sense. He asks the question, how can there be two men? One is either man or he is not. One is not more man than another. All 'men' are equally 'men', because there is one concept of "man". He says that this is only a custom, and that it is a wrong one.
St. Basil the Great affirms that this is the case.
St. Maximos the Confessor affirms that there is one man too.
They all show sources from the more-ancient-than-them documents. But it's not about documents. It is a universal idea, that things can be categorised using words to describe their similarities. This is why we call all rocks "rock". We recognise them, because we know what a rock is. We do not have in mind a specific rock. We just know what a rock is supposed to be like. Just like we know what man is.
Modern philosophers argue that this is not the correct way to describe things, but this has nothing to do with what we are talking about, because these ideas are new, and they were not accepted by the previous generations. So, we have to think like they did. This can't be that hard.
Throughout the centuries the universal church confessed that there is one divine nature and three divine persons. Do you think that the entire church has fallen astray and that YOU got it right?
From Athanasius to Aquinas, from Basil to Gregory the Palamas the church has confessed that there are three divine persons to be worshipped because they are of the same nature, co-eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, good, immaterial etc etc, worthy to be praised at all times.
This is what the "Word was with God" means, this is what Jesus revealed to us.
You are asking how can god proceed from god and how can god be generated from god. In the scriptures it is written that God created Adam from dust, that Eve was created from Adam's, and that Abel generated from Adam and Eve. Yet scripture accepts that they are all three of them human. Scripture does not question the humanity of Abel or Eve. Why should we question the divinity of the Son or the Spirit?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
Andreas1984 please calm a little bit down ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Now on to business,
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
And you think that's because of the doctrine of the Trinity? If that were the case they would all be Unitarians, surely?
No, they would all be atheists.
I don't think this is solely due to the Trinity. We're just not all believers. But such a confusing and contradictory idea of God plays a part.
Funny that you say that Freddy, because the theological rediscovery of the trinity by Moltman et al. happened in response to protest atheism. This form of atheism was a rejection of a certain type of deist God constructed by the philosphers; an unmoving, rational deity who ultimately did not care for his creatures. This was addressed in the article I linked to previously. An interesting book which adresses this point is: "Theism, Atheism and the Doctrine of the Trinity: The Trinitarian Theologies of Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann in Response to Protest Atheism" (American Academy of Religion Academy Series) by W. Waite, Jr. Willis
This interesting article lists several possible reasons from an Orthodox perspective; among them are 1) fundamentalism and 2) PSA
"It turns out that the Greek iconographer and philosopher Photios Kontaglou was correct when he said that the Western Christian concept of God is a primary cause of atheism in the West. Perhaps more clearly, the novel Western doctrine of redemption called "atonement" (penal substitution) is the real culprit."
quote:
There is a definite relationship between the inner and outer parts of all things. There is a relationship between you and your "inner child" ( [Paranoid] ). By the Father loving the Son is meant that God as He exists in Himself beyond all human understanding wills that humanity be able to understand and love Him and so loves the means for that to happen.
Yes I speak about my inner child in metaphorical terms but I do not have true regular conversations with him, like Jesus apparently had with the Father
quote:
Trying to understand these things does not impoverish the faith. As long as they are incomprehensible they will never be believed.
The overtly rationalistic conception of god that emerged in theology after the enlightenment was perfectly comprehensible but ultimately led to atheism and bodhisattva-theology (importance of Mary and the saints and other intermediaries bacame more important as God became more "rational")
Christian doctrines such as those of Creation, Incarnation, and Trinity are “mysteries” that lie beyond our power to comprehend fully. However, we can love these mysteries. In addition, they cast light on the things of this world, they increase our understanding of God, our world, and ourselves. These mysteries illuminate those places that are otherwise murky and disconnected.
I cannot "explain" beauty and love in an overtly rationalistic manner, if I did they would become meaningless.
Re: your questions do point to a clear difference of understanding of some of the central terms here. However, I think this is becoming obvious for the readers of this debate already.
peaceheretic: I like Angelus Silesius as well!
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You have already what Gregory wrote to Ablabious. He says that it is wrong for us to say that "there are many men". It's only a custom, and it does not make sense. He asks the question, how can there be two men? One is either man or he is not.
OK. It's not a quote but I guess it is a rationale. I've just never heard it before.
It just sounds like you are saying that since there is only one MAN no matter how many men there are, then there is only one GOD no matter how many gods there are.
I can see that this is an argument, and I'm sure that it is persuasive to some. Thanks. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
This interesting article lists several possible reasons from an Orthodox perspective; among them are 1) fundamentalism and 2) PSA
"It turns out that the Greek iconographer and philosopher Photios Kontaglou was correct when he said that the Western Christian concept of God is a primary cause of atheism in the West. Perhaps more clearly, the novel Western doctrine of redemption called "atonement" (penal substitution) is the real culprit."
I love this. I'm on board with that idea. But surely it is a confluence of many factors.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
quote:
There is a definite relationship between the inner and outer parts of all things. There is a relationship between you and your "inner child" ( [Paranoid] ). By the Father loving the Son is meant that God as He exists in Himself beyond all human understanding wills that humanity be able to understand and love Him and so loves the means for that to happen.
Yes I speak about my inner child in metaphorical terms but I do not have true regular conversations with him, like Jesus apparently had with the Father
I would say that there is a continual conversation going on between the inner you and the outer you, and for that matter, between you and God. The only difference is that Jesus was aware in ways that we seldom are. For Him it was overt and conscious.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Christian doctrines such as those of Creation, Incarnation, and Trinity are “mysteries” that lie beyond our power to comprehend fully. However, we can love these mysteries....I cannot "explain" beauty and love in an overtly rationalistic manner, if I did they would become meaningless.
I don't disagree. It is one thing, however, to realize that there are certain poetic and beautiful mysteries to life where rational analysis is not fruitful. It is another to espouse contradictory and manifestly absurd ideas about the most basic realities of existence. The leap of faith is always required, but I wouldn't say that it is necessarily a leap into mystery. People don't really believe things that make no sense to them. Fortunately belief has a rationale in and of itself, and this is often enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Re: your questions do point to a clear difference of understanding of some of the central terms here. However, I think this is becoming obvious for the readers of this debate already.
I think you are right.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
Oh dear, Babel has occurred and nobody is understanding what anyone is saying.
andreas1984: I also share Freddy's concerns.
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Oh dear, Babel has occurred and nobody is understanding what anyone is saying.
Si le dzifowo! Wo nko nuti nako! Wo fiadufe nava!
But it's better than trying to understand the LDS or JW concept of "God". ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Bonaventura, there might be a difference in what we perceive as "mystery". To me, it is really mysterious, how God made the world; not the fact that He made it. Another mystery to me is what God really is; not the fact that He is. The existence of the Trinity, and the mode of the existence of the trinity are mysteries; not the fact that there are three divine persons.
There is this thread in Hell, about what orthodoxy has to offer.
Well, as far as the trinitarian debate is concerned, this is what we offer, and we offer it freely to anyone. We explain what is "mystery" and what can be explained, we worship three divine persons; not one. We worship one divine being; not three. We explain who the Cause of the Trinity is; we show who are they that are Caused by the Cause. We explain there is a difference in the way they are caused; we confess that the mode in which they are caused is a mystery.
This is the faith that the Apostles gave to the rest of us. We have kept that faith. We do not start from scratch. We know that Christ in both His natures is the Son of God. He is not the Son of His own Self. He is the Son of His Father. This we know. After confessing our faith, we can try to show why we believe what we believe. But the faith trusted to us by the Apostles of Christ is to be kept intact at all cases. It is not the object of a debate. It is taken fro granted. Explanations are made, but they are not required for the faith to be valid.
Freddy, I never admitted many 'men'. So, as far as I am concerned, I cannot be blamed for introducing the term many 'gods'. For me, there is only one god.
Freddy, there are other arguments as well in what one god means. But I don't think there is any point in starting this conversation here, because you seem to think in a way different than the apophatic one the orthodox church uses. I daresay that the orthodox theology is almost entirely built using the apophatic way of thinking and expressing things.
Bonaventura, what is it that concerns you too? I do not understand.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
you seem to think in a way different than the apophatic one the orthodox church uses. I daresay that the orthodox theology is almost entirely built using the apophatic way of thinking and expressing things.
Good point. It is hard to twist my brain around to apophatic thinking.
From wikipedia:
quote:
Adherents of apophatic theology hold that God, by definition, is that which is utterly beyond this universe and outside the bounds of what humans can understand. Rather than producing straightforward, positive assertions about the nature of God, it speaks by way of negation. Examples of statements made by those adhering to negative theology include:
One should not say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor should we say that God is nonexistent. We can only say that neither existence nor nonexistence applies to God.
I agree that this clearly changes the discussion!
[ 12. May 2005, 18:37: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Bonaventura, thank you very much for the links you gave us. Really interesting stuff. Excellent reading and food for thought! Thank you very much indeed.
Freddy, orthodox theology is a living experience. When we put it in writing though, we use the apophatic way of thinking. Perhaps we could discuss on the ways this approach could benefit our dialogue.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
This link could perhaps clear some of the confusion of Babel.
Freddy, I primarily see the differences here in choice of basic analogy.
"Historically, theologians have sought basic models in creation for understanding the Trinity. Essentially there are two kinds of models. The first is the nature of the human mind, the second the nature of human social relationships."
Now lets go back to:
[ 12. May 2005, 22:30: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
Freddy I just have to ask;
From what little knowledge I have of Swedenborg, I recall that he was rather heavy into psychological analogies. I remember that he speculated on how the Tabernacle was a model of how God works in the human mind. Is this right?
Is this distinctive emphasis in Swedenborg also the background for your general approach in this debate?
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
People don't really believe things that make no sense to them.
I disagree. This is basically my relationship to quantum mechanics.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
From what little knowledge I have of Swedenborg, I recall that he was rather heavy into psychological analogies. I remember that he speculated on how the Tabernacle was a model of how God works in the human mind. Is this right?
Is this distinctive emphasis in Swedenborg also the background for your general approach in this debate?
Yes and no.
Swedenborg is especially heavily into the idea that there is a consistent symbolism used throughout the Bible, which can be seen by noting how terms, numbers, places, and names are used repeatedly in different contexts. Holy things such as the tabernacle, temple, ark, bread and wine in the eucharist, etc. are holy because they stand for intrinsically holy things such as God, faith, love to God, love to the neighbor, and how this love operates and is created. So, yes, things like this are about how God works in the human mind.
This definitely contributes to my thoughts about the trinity being a metaphor that describes the relationship of the divine love, the divine truth, and the resulting divine activity, the visible and invisible God, and other conceptions of divinity.
But Swedenborg is even more heavily into the careful comparison of Scripture passages in order to see the consistent meanings of terms and the doctrines they teach.
So, no, my approach here is not so much about psychological analogies - although I do subscribe to the Augustinian psychological model of the trinity - as it is about forming a consistent picture of all Scripture passages relating to the trinity.
My interest here is questions such as whether Scripture supports the idea of a trinity of persons, whether it supports the idea that Jesus is in fact divine, and similar questions. It is interesting to me to see the Scriptural reasoning and understanding behind various positions.
The LDS and JW contributors seem to base their positions on certain definitions and translations of specific words, as well as ideas from extra-biblical revelations. The same is really true of all of us in one way or other. So we won't necessarily ever agree, but it is usually helpful to have our assumptions challenged. I know mine continue to be. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I do not think that John M. Frame is right in what he says.
Firstly, the Cappadocians did not present their model as an analogy. They presented it is a perfectly logical explanation of what the trinity really means. They did not started from the human society of persons. They explained that there is one god in three persons; after having clarifying that they said that we already accept a "one nature in many substances" approach when we discuss about man. So, it's the other way around. They did not started from man and went to god. They started from god, explained what the church believes in, and then they said that this is not a new concept; we already do this for other things, this is what we should do.
As far as analogies are concerned, Augustine was the one that used them greatly in West. This does not mean that he was the first person to use analogies to explain the Trinity. Analogies were in use from the very beginning in the East, much earlier than Augustine's very birth. Most Eastern Fathers used them, from Origen, to Athanasious, and so on. Besides, the Cappadocians themselves used them. The Orthodox Church used them throughout the centuries. But they are just analogies. The Orthodox Church has always rejected that we can logically understand what the trinity means by using such analogies. In fact, the Orthodox Church has declared them to be heretical, if taken to the extreme. This is not the case however with the concept of one god in three persons, as explained by the Cappadocians. Besides, the Catechism of the RCC clearly subscribes to this view, by declaring that the Church believes that the three divine persons are confessed to be one god, because they are of the same nature.
There are many ways we can use to explain that the deity is one. However, I have persisted in the "one nature, three persons" explanation, because we can all understand (more or less) what nature is and what persons are. Even young children are familiar with these concepts. Everybody confesses a rock when seeing one. We don't give special names to every rock we see. They are all names rock because of the common nature they share in.
Freddy, if you have understood our point, i.e. that we believe that the one god subsists in three persons, we can continue our discussion further by either finding biblical support for this explanation, or by thinking on the other explanations the Church have used. Beware though, we have to dwell into apophatic theology.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Freddy, if you have understood our point, i.e. that we believe that the one god subsists in three persons, we can continue our discussion further by either finding biblical support for this explanation, or by thinking on the other explanations the Church have used. Beware though, we have to dwell into apophatic theology.
Who is "we"? And since when is apophatic theology the standard for discussions here?
Otherwise, sure, I understand your point about how one god can subsist in three persons.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
By "we" I was referring to those of us that believe in the "one god in three persons" formula.
As far as apophatic theology is concerned, it is the only way we can use to talk about god in a way that is accurate. I am not going to argue about this thesis. The church, throughout the centuries, has demonstrated in many ways that this is the case. We can say nothing about god. This is what we have learnt; His essence is ineffable. Thinking otherwise would be heretical.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
We can say nothing about god. This is what we have learnt; His essence is ineffable. Thinking otherwise would be heretical.
In that case, why not just agree with me that God is one in person and in essence, and that references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit make more sense as ways of describing God than as literal personages?
Since there is no way to adequately describe God, why take these things literally rather than metaphorically? Isn't this kind of literalism almost sure to be wrong?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
No, because saying that there are three divine persons, tells us nothing of "what" these persons are. We know they are divine, but we do not know what divine really means. OK, they can do everything, but this, in an apophatic way of thinking, only means that there i nothing they can't do. They know all things, which means that there is nothing that they are unaware of. They are everywhere; this means that there is not a specific place where we say that there only they are. We say they are darkness, meaning that they are not the light we see with our eyes. We say they are light, and we mean that they are not the darkness we see with our physical eyes. We say that they are eternal, which only means that there will not be a point at time when they will stop being. So, we know that there are three persons, but we don't know what these persons are. We call them divine; yet we cannot give a positive definition to what divinity is like. We can only say what they are not. I know they are not human, they are not rocks, they are not flowers; but what they are I do not know. In fact, I can only share in their energies; not their essence.
So, even though god is ineffable, we do know that god exists in three persons. We do know He exists; even if we cannot tell what this essence is like. If what you propose was to be done, i.e. to stop confessing three persons because this has to do with their nature (but this has nothing to do with their nature, with what they are, like I showed you earlier in this post), then we shouldn't confess either that god exist. But these things we confess, i.e. that god exists and that god exists in three persons, because these facts have nothing to do with god's nature.
The West has been led to different ways because people with different understandings of the Trinity lived there. Two different civilisations co-existed in Europe. The western way of life was driven by those that accepted only one divine person (mainly Arians, i.e. Jesus is a mere human). They conquered the orthodox West and did not let orthodoxy affect them. They created a different civilisation, a culture of the "new". This has not been the case for the East. The East has embraced the civilisation of the "kaino" and accessed the deity through addressing three divine persons. These two different world-views fought. The Byzantine Empire has fallen, and the western civilisation led to the humanitarian movements of Italy and the Enlightenment of France and Germany and England. This way of thinking has led to what we perceive today as "globalisation". The consequences of the loss of holiness are apparent to the scholars.
It seems that holiness, although really apparent and observable in the beginnings of our faith, has been decreasing throughout the centuries, and now it's almost near zero. The two different ways of life, their battle for prevalence, the new world they created, have certainly played a role in forming this situation.
But maybe this is another thread altogether.
It is really odd for the church, how you prefer to think that He is the Son of Himself, as if that could be possible. This sounds really impious and absurd. He said that He is not alone. You are saying that He is alone, instead of accepting what He said. The church does not say how things can be; it just formulates what the facts are. This is a revelation from God to mankind, that God is and that He is in three persons. The Son of God chose to reveal Himself to us. With reverence, we accept His revelation, and do not try to explain why and how this is. We do not come to the conclusion that God exists through rational arguments. We accept His revelation to us.
I will quote Ambrose and I will ask you again these questions, because I want to understand what you believe in. How can something that is caused be the cause of itself? And why did He say that He is not alone? You are saying that His humanity was not alone because there was His divinity. But the two natures indeed were separate from each other. They had nothing in common, for one is uncreated and the other created. The deity does not dwell a certain place; it's immaterial. So, His divinity was not in relation to His humanity, as if there were two different persons, one human and one divine. The same person was both human and divine. If He meant Himself, then He would be alone. That would make Him a liar. Jesus is not a liar. So, is He alone, like He said, or is He not? And what about before He assumed the human nature? For He didn't say that "on the cross I will not be alone", but He said that He is not alone, meaning that He is not alone at all times; even before time itself was created, He was not alone.
To quote C.S.Lewis, we say that God is love, and this is true. Whom did God love before the universe was created? Was God alone before time was created? Love is not something God gives to the people only. Love is essential for God. The fact that God loves essentially, should bring someone to the fact that there are more than one persons in the deity.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Why we do not talk about three divine beings
There are three reasons that prevent orthodox christians from talking about three divine beings and compel us to use the term "person" instead.
Firstly, a being can be used as a synonym for essence. But we do not confess three divine essences. Therefore there is only one divine being. Another word to describe that reality could be "essence", or "nature".
Secondly, a being exists in itself. But the Son of God and the Spirit of God are caused by God. They do not exist by themselves. They need the Father and Cause of the Trinity to exist. Therefore, because there is one Cause in the Trinity, we confess one being. This is the doctrine of Monarchy. There is one God, because there is one Cause in the Trinity, the Father of the Son and Emmiter of the Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, apophatically speaking, we cannot say that "God is here" or "God is there". God cannot be found inside the creation. He is ontologically different than the creation, i.e. the creation is created, while God is uncreated. Therefore we cannot speak of many gods, as if one could be found here and another there. This is why we confess one God. There is one God, because there cannot be found many gods.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I will ask you again these questions, because I want to understand what you believe in. How can something that is caused be the cause of itself? And why did He say that He is not alone? You are saying that His humanity was not alone because there was His divinity. But the two natures indeed were separate from each other. They had nothing in common, for one is uncreated and the other created. The deity does not dwell a certain place; it's immaterial. So, His divinity was not in relation to His humanity, as if there were two different persons, one human and one divine.
That is very observant, and I think that you have a good point.
The situation was like this, as I understand it.
Humanity in ancient times worshiped an invisible God. They had this God in their hearts and they worshiped Him intuitively. This is Adam and Eve in Eden. Over time, however, they estranged themselves from this God by an increasing focus on material things. This was leaving Eden.
God, however, gave the human race means to find their way back to Eden. These means were the truths of religion, which were gradually given over a long period of time, as people gained the means to understand, record and transmit them.
The ultimate means was that Jehovah Himself came to earth to teach us with His own mouth. The divine truth that He came to give us had always existed. Truth is the means by which all creation happened, as if God spoke and it was done, or as if God gave a form to all things. This was the Word with God that also was God.
The divine truth and the divine love can be said to be the same thing, since they are what God is. However, insofar as they can be distinguished, divine love always takes precedence, and so the truth, or the Word, can be said to be "begotten" from the divine love.
When He was born on earth in a human form, this human actually was separate from the Father. There was a long period of development as the human form was glorified from the divine within it, gradually becoming one with the Father. This is the reason for the language of Father and Son. This is why He constantly referred to doing His Father's will and fullfilling the prophecies. As He did the Father's will He became one with the Father. At the resurrection He was completely united with the Father, and this is why He then said "All power has been given to me in heaven and on earth."
So the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
The point is for humanity to be able to see and understand God, to know what God commands, and to love and follow Him - thus causing his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.
To me this is a good explanation. It seems to me to account for more Scriptures than other explanations. It also provides a hopeful picture of human progress as people come to know and obey their creator and savior - leading eventually to the New Jerusalem.
I realize that this is not the majority opinion. Still, it seems reasonable and Scriptural to me, without leaving gaps in the explanation.
I do understand and accept that a real understanding of divine things are beyond all human understanding. But surely there are levels of approach that don't leave us completely in the dark. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
This is how I see it.
Man became to exist out of an extremely slow process, called natural selection.
I don't have a clue what species we can call "man". It must be a Hominidae. Perhaps of the genus Homo. I am not sure though that he was a H. Sapiens.
So, first men were beings quite different than what we think. They lived in a hostile environment and I doubt they worshipped one God. The very question if they worshipped can be asked.
We created civilisations. We worshipped. We tried to solve crucial existential questions using religion. Until one people, the ancient Hebrews, understood that God was one in nature. Not that the other peoples did not interact with God. No, God gives His gifts to all people. But after the Jews understood that there is but one deity, things have changed.
You know the story from that point.
So, there was no Adam, no Eve, and no Fall. No Edem as well.
Yet God is constantly with His creation.
It's fanny that you use the "Word" analogy to show that God is one person. Throughout the centuries this analogy was used to show the Trinity of the persons. The Father speaks His Word. By speaking He breathes His Spirit and speaks His Word. The Father and the Air and the Word are different substances. So, if we think that all three of them are divine, and indeed we confess all three of them to be divine, we have to confess three divine substances.
How is it that you confess only one divine substance? I do not understand.
P.S. When you speak of a man that gradually becomes God's Word, you miss the entire point. You introduce two persons. One God and one man. You are saying that the two are separate, but they become one in the process. This is a version of Nestorianism. The man Jesus is not different that Jesus the God. There is only one "I". Not two. Besides, if John the Baptist was aware of who Christ was while he was in his mother's womb, would n't Christ Himself be aware that He is the true God?
The process of salvation is not always time-consuming. Remember the man at the right of Jesus's Cross? It took him only one moment to get saved.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Andreas,
Very interesting thoughts about the process of creation and the evolution of man. I didn't realize that it was Orthodox to reject the idea of Adam, Eve and Eden. For myself, I accept these accounts as Divine Revelation, but see them as an ancient description of humanity's spiritual history, not a literal description.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Father and the Air and the Word are different substances. So, if we think that all three of them are divine, and indeed we confess all three of them to be divine, we have to confess three divine substances.
How is it that you confess only one divine substance? I do not understand.
I think that Scripture is very clear in many places that there is only one possible divine substance. "I am Jehovah and beside Me there is no God." It also makes sense logically that there can be only one omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
When you speak of a man that gradually becomes God's Word, you miss the entire point. You introduce two persons. One God and one man. You are saying that the two are separate, but they become one in the process. This is a version of Nestorianism. The man Jesus is not different that Jesus the God. There is only one "I". Not two. Besides, if John the Baptist was aware of who Christ was while he was in his mother's womb, would n't Christ Himself be aware that He is the true God?
This isn't Nestorianism. Jesus was divine from the beginning. The Father was within Him as the soul is within the body, as in Augustine's model of the trinity. Yes, Jesus was aware of this from the beginning of His consciousness. The process of the glorification of His human nature was like the process of human regeneration. By doing His Father's will He gradually became one with the Father.
quote:
John 5.19 "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel."
John 8.28 "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him."
John 15.10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love... 15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you."
Jesus did the will of His Father, the Father was within Him, and He ascended to the Father. This is a description of the glorification of His human, not of the relationship between three equally divine persons.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The process of salvation is not always time-consuming. Remember the man at the right of Jesus's Cross? It took him only one moment to get saved.
Yes, a person can repent quickly. However, we don't know what that man was truly like. Jesus did. The man's humble words indicate that he was repentant of whatever deeds he had done. Jesus was able to look into his heart and know whether or not he could be happy in heaven.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Freddy
Thinking that beings that have hardly any resemblance to what we now call "man" could possibly worship the one true deity is rather hard to accept.
There is only one divine essence, but three divine substances. The scripture is clear on that. There is the Father and Emiter of the Word and the Air He breathes. This analogy shows clearly that there are three divine substances. How can one accept there is a Word and not introduce two substances in the deity? If there is one substance, then there can be no Word of that substance. One and His Word are two different substances. Just like His Word and the Air He breathes are two different substances. So, by confessing a Word we must confess a substance different than the One that speaks that Word. By not confessing two substances you have no right using the term "Word", for you do not actually admit there is a Word or an Air. You think that the Word and the Air is the same person with Him that emits the Air and speaks the Word. But this is absurd.
The scripture clearly guide us to accept there are three substances by acknowledging the Father, His Word and His Breath.
Sure, there is one deity. But you keep changing the phrase "there is one god" to add "there is one divine person" while it says "there is one divine nature". You are changing the phrase's meaning. The phrase does not tell what you say it does. Can't you see it? One could interpret it to mean "one divine essence" AND NOT "one divine essence in one divine person" after having understood that there is a Word and a Breath.
A substance does not generate itself. Nor can it breathe itself. A substance's breath is another substance. A substance's word, is another substance.
P.S. Jesus was not glorified when He ascended to Heavens. He had been glorified by the Father from the very beginning. The Father confesses that He has glorified Him and that He will keep glorifying Him.
If Jesus was divine, then there was no need of regeneration. Clearly, since the Word and the Breath the Father breathes to speak His Word are brought forth simultaneously, Christ's regeneration is the same with His generation, because of the sanctifying Spirit that is aspirated when the Word is spoken. (The regeneration included the Spirit's sanctifying power.)
In your quotation it is written that the Father shows all things to the Son. If this is the case, and indeed it is, the Father has shown the Son the creation of the Universe, the formation of the stars and planets and so on. So, the Son had a relationship with the Father from the beginning, and not just when He became man. This quotation clearly shows that a substance different from the Father existed along with Him from the very beginning of time.
Your interpretation is not accurate, because it confuses natures with persons. Two different natures cannot have a relationship with each other. Two different persons can. To relate is something only persons, or substances, can do; not essences. You are confusing the terms here.
When the three divine persons speak, we are not to listen to three different voices. The interaction of the uncreated with the created is not the same with the interaction of the created with the created. By saying that since we have listened to one voice, there must be one person, you are severely damaging the concept of the Uncreated God. Orthodoxy has experienced the ontological difference of the Uncreated and the Created. You cannot just assume that there is no such different and that the Uncreated God interacts with the created world just like two created substances interact with each other. Even if there were one hundred divine beings, the voice Moses has heard would be only one, saying "Hear you Israel; your deity is one deity".
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is only one divine essence, but three divine substances. The scripture is clear on that. There is the Father and Emiter of the Word and the Air He breathes. This analogy shows clearly that there are three divine substances. How can one accept there is a Word and not introduce two substances in the deity?
I would not say that the Scriptures are clear that there are these different substances. They speak of Father, Spirit, Word, and use other terms as well. Every term does not indicate a substance. Why are bread, light, and living water not also substances? These are simply terms descriptive of God, what He does, and who He is. Taking these metaphors literally multiplies what can't be multiplied.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Sure, there is one deity. But you keep changing the phrase "there is one god" to add "there is one divine person" while it says "there is one divine nature". You are changing the phrase's meaning. The phrase does not tell what you say it does. Can't you see it? One could interpret it to mean "one divine essence" AND NOT "one divine essence in one divine person" after having understood that there is a Word and a Breath.
So what is the difference between and essence and a person? If there is one essence can there really be more than one person? The Word and the Breath are both simply God - the Word is His divine truth, the Breath is His divine life proceeding from Him.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
A substance does not generate itself. Nor can it breathe itself. A substance's breath is another substance. A substance's word, is another substance.
These are not other substances, they are qualities and actions of God. He breathes life into us, and He teaches us by means of His divine truth. The divine love is substance, the divine truth is form - the two are inseparable.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
P.S. Jesus was not glorified when He ascended to Heavens. He had been glorified by the Father from the very beginning. The Father confesses that He has glorified Him and that He will keep glorifying Him.
The word "glorify" is used in several contexts is the gospels. It can mean "praise" and other things, but Jesus often uses it to refer to the process of lifting up His human and uniting it with the Father. The essential divine truth, which is the Word, and which was together with God at the beginning was always glorified. But Jesus clearly speaks of a process of being united with His Father and lifted up:
quote:
John 7.37 - On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Jesus was in the process of being glorified. It took time and happened in time. He speaks of it as He approaches the crucifixion. It was only after this that He was fully glorified:
quote:
John 12.16 His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about Him and that they had done these things to Him.
That is, after He was crucified and raised up to His Father.
quote:
John 12.23 - Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain."
Jesus is saying that He is about to become fully glorified.
quote:
John 12.27 - "Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28“Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.”
Jesus, as the divine truth which is the Word, was always glorified. But He is to be glorified again in this world as to His human, which is to be lifted up spiritually. The meaning here is that God Himself is becoming visible in the world through what Jesus did.
quote:
John 13.30 Having received the piece of bread, Judas then went out immediately. And it was night. So, when he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and glorify Him immediately."
That is, when Jesus is crucified He will be fully glorified. He will then be fully united with the Father, so that the Father is visible through Him. Jesus is then the face of God, or the visible God. The Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ is the one God of heaven and earth.
quote:
John 17.1 - "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
The "work" that Jesus came to do was to overcome the power of evil, or the power of darkness, by bringing the light into the world, that is, His truth. This is what it means to make God visible. It was a process and not a momentary sacrifice. During the process the Father and the Son were still separate. When the process was complete the Son was glorified, and the Father was glorified in the Son. All power was then given to the Son because He is God as humanity can see and understand and love Him.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
If Jesus was divine, then there was no need of regeneration. Clearly, since the Word and the Breath the Father breathes to speak His Word are brought forth simultaneously, Christ's regeneration is the same with His generation, because of the sanctifying Spirit that is aspirated when the Word is spoken. (The regeneration included the Spirit's sanctifying power.)
There was not a need for regeneration. Jesus was Divine from birth. But there was a need for the process of glorification. Jesus had to teach, to endure conflicts with the devil and correspondingly with evil powers on earth and in the church. This could not happen instantly.
The whole process of the Incarnation was for the purpose of reuniting God with humanity. People had fallen into disorder because they obeyed the dictates of their senses rather than God. He therefore came down to make Himself visible to the senses, so that people by means of their sense could learn about, understand, obey and love Him. This way He brings humanity back into order, so far as people are willing to obey, and restores peace to the world.
So the imagery of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a metaphor for the separations and distinctions necessary in this process. They shouldn't be taken literally as three persons in one God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The West has been led to different ways because people with different understandings of the Trinity lived there. Two different civilisations co-existed in Europe. The western way of life was driven by those that accepted only one divine person (mainly Arians, i.e. Jesus is a mere human). They conquered the orthodox West and did not let orthodoxy affect them.
Firstly, I do not think that Arians ever believed that Jesus is a mere human. Opinions seem to range from him being the greatest of the angels, to someone so high above the angels that one would not compare the two, yet still a created being.
Secondly, could you please provide some evidence for the ridiculous assertion that Arianism has been driving the West in spite of the historical dominance of the Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed and later various independent churches that confess the doctrine of the Holy Trinity?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The West has been led to different ways because people with different understandings of the Trinity lived there. Two different civilisations co-existed in Europe. The western way of life was driven by those that accepted only one divine person (mainly Arians, i.e. Jesus is a mere human). They conquered the orthodox West and did not let orthodoxy affect them.
Firstly, I do not think that Arians ever believed that Jesus is a mere human. Opinions seem to range from him being the greatest of the angels, to someone so high above the angels that one would not compare the two, yet still a created being.
While I don't really understand Andreas' assertion, I do think that Arianism can be broadly characterized as a lack of belief in the divinity of Jesus. Catholic Encyclopedia on Arianism:
quote:
Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.
I agree that this is more complicated than just denying Christ's divinity, but this is what it amounts to.
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Secondly, could you please provide some evidence for the ridiculous assertion that Arianism has been driving the West in spite of the historical dominance of the Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed and later various independent churches that confess the doctrine of the Holy Trinity?
My view on this is that the long term result of Trinitarian doctrine has been to separate God and Jesus in the minds of the average Christian.
The effect, in my opinion, has been that the average person of Christian ancestry does not believe that Jesus is really divine. I think that polls confirm this. On this ship there is quite a bit of support for the idea that Joseph was Jesus' father. In my mind this confirms what Andreas is saying.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My view on this is that the long term result of Trinitarian doctrine has been to separate God and Jesus in the minds of the average Christian.
The effect, in my opinion, has been that the average person of Christian ancestry does not believe that Jesus is really divine. I think that polls confirm this. On this ship there is quite a bit of support for the idea that Joseph was Jesus' father. In my mind this confirms what Andreas is saying.
Perhaps you ought to blame the Jesus seminar™ instead? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 16. May 2005, 17:14: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
You're probably right. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The Word is not a metaphor. You cannot deny that BEFORE the world was created, the Word existed. But before the creation itself, no metaphors could exist. The Uncreated Word of God existed before the creation itself. This we know. But for something to exist, it has to have a substance. Therefore there are two substances in the deity.
Keep this in mind: for something to exist, it must have a substance. Therefore, if the Spirit exists, it has a substance. But if He is the Spirit of God, then His substance is different than God's substance. So, there are two substances, not one.
When the Word says that He is the Gate, this is clearly a metaphor. When He says that He will send the Spirit though, this is no metaphor; He really means it. Is He a liar for He sent no Spirit, if no Spirit exists? But if the Spirit exists, then it must subsist. It is a substance different from Him that sends Him. Let's assume that the Gate is also a substance. You are saying that if my thinking is correct, then, somehow, the Gate metaphor must be a substance as well. But the Gate is not a substance. Therefore metaphors can be used that indicate no different substance that the one person. Your argument is logically wrong. Let's think about the Gate having a substance. OK, it has a substance. But the Word does not say that the Gate is different from Him. He says "I am the Gate". Or "I am the Shepherd" or "I am the Way". Assuming that the Gate has a substance, or the Way has a substance, this substance is the same with the substance of the Word, because He said "I am this or that". But Jesus's Father never said that "I am Jesus". He said that "I am in Him and He is in me". Did Jesus say that He is His Father? De He say that the Spirit is His Father? Did the Father say "I am the holy spirit"?
So, your arguments are not logical.
Now we have talked this, can you see that you have made a mistake?
You are asking what the difference between an essence and a person is. I am a person. You are a person. We are two persons. But we are one essence. The human essence is one. Is the difference clear?
All rocks have the same essence. They are all rocks! But they subsist in different substances. So, one essence, different substances (or, for rational substances, we can use the term "persons").
You are saying that there can be forms without substances. This is something I hear for the first time in my life. Everything that exists, subsists. To exist, means to subsist in substances. It's the definition! How on earth can you think that God's love does not subsist? If it does not subsist, it does not exist!
For Christ's shake, I will make one more effort to convince you that there are three divine persons and not just one.
Please, bear with me and try to think hard on what I am saying.
You saying that God loves. I am asking you, does God really love? If he does, and I confess that He does, then His love exists. But another word for "exists" is "subsists". So, His love subsists in a substance. God's love is God's love; it is not God Himself. So, God loves, i.e. from Him comes something. That something is a substance. His love has a substance, else it could n't have existed. Is His love divine? Of course not. The scriptures do not teach that His love is divine. So, His love is not God. It is something different, but not God. Therefore there are two substances; God and His love. What about His Word? FOR THE SAME REASONS, His Word has to subsist. But the scriptures clearly show that His Word is divine. Therefore this other substance is divine. So, there are two divine substances. To make a long story short, if we think using the same arguments for the Spirit, we reach to the conclusion that there are three divine substances. because these substances are rational, we call them persons. So, there are three divine persons.
P.S. I do not comment on what you are saying about Jesus's glorification, because I want the thread to focus on the Trinity.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
andreas1984 said: quote:
God's love is God's love; it is not God Himself.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) So what about 1 John 4:16? quote:
God is love; he who dwells in love is dwelling in God, and God in him.
Okay, I personally think that's a metaphor, but since we were pulling up the proof texts... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
could you please provide some evidence for the ridiculous assertion that Arianism has been driving the West
I was mainly referring to the period from 410 AD to 476 AD. When Rome fell, the "winners" were Arians. The "losers" were orthodox. Now, for the winner to let himself be spiritually influenced by the loser, the winner has to have a great ethical height. For example, when Rome conquered Greece, the Greek civilisation prevailed over the Roman civilisation of that time, and another civilisation emerged (or, like the Latins said, "the barbarian Latios conquered Greece, but in fact, it was Greece that conquered Latios"). This is not, however, the case with the Fall of Rome. The new conquerors were not like Latios. The barbaric tribes did not accept the trinitarian orthodoxy in it's fullness. For everyone that is interested in understanding what played an extremely important role for the formation of today's West, read about what happened with the Fall of Rome. Who conquered whom, which different religions they confessed, what happened after the Fall of Rome, especially as far as THE PEOPLES are concerned. After inter-marriages, what do you think the leading culture was? The defeated orthodox or the conquering who-learnt-Christ-from-Arians non-orthodox one?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
andreas1984 said: quote:
God's love is God's love; it is not God Himself.
So what about 1 John 4:16? quote:
God is love; he who dwells in love is dwelling in God, and God in him.
Okay, I personally think that's a metaphor, but since we were pulling up the proof texts...
Lyda*Rose, God did not say "Hear ye Israel, Love is me". If He did, then Love would be a person. John was trying to explain that when we love we live in Christ. If love is literally God, then we can create God, because we can start loving, and we can destroy God, for we can stop loving. So, God would be defeated whenever we were wicked, for then we would have nothing to do with God; God would not exist for us. But God is everywhere, even in Hell. This is what the scriptures say.
So, even if God said that love is divine, it would have to be another divine person that God. And if God said that He is Love, then God's nature would be explained and named. But we have been taught that what God is cannot be named, and it cannot be explained.
John is only saying that when we love, God abides in us. When we hate, we are not doing God's will.
Besides, for God to love, there must be at least another person whom He will love. But before the world was created, whom did God love? God loved His Son and His Spirit.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Keep this in mind: for something to exist, it must have a substance. Therefore, if the Spirit exists, it has a substance. But if He is the Spirit of God, then His substance is different than God's substance. So, there are two substances, not one.
Things do not need substance to exist. If God is both divine truth and divine love, is He two different substances? These are attributes of God, not different substances. Love itself is a substance, but truth is the form of that substance, not a separate substance.
The Word is simply the divine truth. This was in the beginning with God, but it is not a substance.
But we are not looking at Scripture here. Do you have Scripture passages that illustrate what you mean about the three persons being different substance and not just metaphor?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Listen to what you are saying carefully. Truth us different from love. They are not the same thing. They are two different essences. Even if one of them was God, the other would not be God, or we would introduce polytheism. The two essences have to subsist is substances in order for them to exist!
Humanity is an essence. If there were no human person, then the human nature would not exist. The human nature exists because there are human persons. An essence cannot exist without a substance. This has to do with logic. If what you are saying is illogical, then it does not matter what the scriptures say. Illogical syllogisms have nothing to do with reality. And it is reality we are talking about here.
Every love subsists. It is not without substance. If it was without substance, then it would not exist. The same applies for the truths we speak. They subsist; else they would not exist. If the Word is the divine truth, then you have named that which cannot be named. You have explained that which cannot be explained, you have given form to that which has no form, you have limited the Unlimited. (because you are actually saying that the Word *IS* God's truth or love or whatever, while we use the term "Word" as a name for the person; we do not say that His nature is that of God's speech)
Truth in general is an essence. But for truth in general to exist, there must be specific truths. So, there must be substances in truth. Else, truth would not exist.
You are speaking of metaphors and so on. But you miss the whole point. For something to exist, it must subsist. All that is existent subsists. By claiming that the Word or the Spirit does not subsist, you confess that they do not exist, which is absurd. Besides, by claiming that the Word is divine, you already accept that He subsist (even though you say that His substance is the same as His Father's substance). But, in your last posts, you are arguing that the Word is different from God because it does not have a substance.
You are terribly confusing God with God's energies. Both God and His energies exist, but His energies are different than God Himself. Our conversation here cannot continue because you have stopped using logic for your arguments. Logos makes it clear that when something exists, it subsists. What you are saying does not make sense.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Besides, for God to love, there must be at least another person whom He will love. But before the world was created, whom did God love?
This is right. The whole nature of love is to love another. So this is the purpose of creation.
quote:
1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
I think that these do mean that love defines what God is, and vice-versa. This central Christian metaphor is accepted throughout Christianity.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
For something to exist, it must subsist. All that is existent subsists. By claiming that the Word or the Spirit does not subsist, you confess that they do not exist, which is absurd. Besides, by claiming that the Word is divine, you already accept that He subsist (even though you say that His substance is the same as His Father's substance). But, in your last posts, you are arguing that the Word is different from God because it does not have a substance.
I'm not saying anything complicated. The Word is the divine truth. That's all. No one thinks that truth is a substance.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You are terribly confusing God with God's energies. Both God and His energies exist, but His energies are different than God Himself. Our conversation here cannot continue because you have stopped using logic for your arguments. Logos makes it clear that when something exists, it subsists. What you are saying does not make sense.
I realize that love is considered by the Orthodox to be an energy and not God's essence. This is not the Western view or my view.
But you can't say it's not logical just because it is different than your own theology. All Christian theology must be based on the Christian Scriptures. I'm not seeing how your view is substantiated by either Scripture or logic.
Still, I agree with your approach to Jesus' work and the path to salvation.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
No. This has nothing to do with what the church believed in.
Firstly, the creation is not created so tha God has something to love. If God loves, then God must love even BEFORE the creation got created. This is why the Father generated the Son and spirates the Spirit.
Secondly,love does not define God. It is one thing to say that love is god (idolatry) and another to say that God loves.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
In that case you worship idols; not God. For you worship the truth, while the Christians worship God. God's essence cannot be named or explained or limited. By saying that His essence is His love, you make Him a thing rather than a person. Your deity is impersonal. Even the person of the Father becomes a mere substance. This has nothing to do with the religions that stem from Abraham. To us, God is personal.
P.S. What you are saying is not logical not because you are not accepting the distinction between God's essence and energies, but because you say that something may exist without subsisting, which is ABSURD. This is refuted by logic itself. This is why I am saying that what you wrote is illogical. This has nothing to do with what the Western Christianity teaches. Read any RC Father you want. They all affirm that to exist, one has to subsist in something. This is plain Aristotelian logic. No "Eastern" novelty.
[ 16. May 2005, 19:25: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Firstly, the creation is not created so tha God has something to love. If God loves, then God must love even BEFORE the creation got created. This is why the Father generated the Son and spirates the Spirit.
There is no "before" creation. Time only came into existence with creation.
Love needs an object. The love between the divine persons is self-love, since there is only one God. Love is the purpose of creation, because it needs an object to love, make happy and be joined with.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
There can be no love between a person and an object. Love needs at least two persons. There are two subjects of love.
There is no "before" creation for the created; not for the Uncreated. For God there is no time or place. God exists in a different mode of existence than creation.
Did God love before creation? You say that He loved Himself. What kind of love is this? How strange and novel a concept for love! This is not what the experience of the church shows. We exist because we are in relation with others (in Zulu: Ubuntu). The same applies to God. The Uncreated Source generates the Son and becomes the Fountain for the Spirit. The three persons exist in relation to each other; they are because they are related to each other. There is no Father without a Son, nor there is an Emitter without a Spirit.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Andreas -- as a Host I am finding it a little difficult to relate each of your posts to the appropriate antecedent. This is making it very difficult to follow the lines of the discussion for me, and no doubt for anyone else who may be following htis.
This isn't a formal ruling, but a gentle request, to somehow reference the post to which you are referring when you are posting a series of responses. Better still, remember that there is a general feeling that double or triple posting is a problem, just because it causes this problem.
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I want to apologize to the readers. I'll do my best next time.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Sorry. My fault as well.
Andreas, I appreciate your ideas here.
I'm wondering if it is generally accepted that the mutual love among the persons of the Trinity "before" creation fulfilled the requirement of love needing an object. I have heard this before, but am not aware if it is an official position.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The Lord created me as the beginning of his way
the first of his acts of long ago.
Ages ago I was set up.
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth-
when he had not yet made earth and fields,
or the world's first bits of soil.
When he established the heavens, I was there,
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
when he assigned to the sea it's limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
then I was beside him, like a master worker (or a little child);
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always
rejoicing in his inhabiting world
and delighting in the human race.
Proverbs 8.22 - 8.31
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always
This does sound like the Son being loved by the Father at the beginning. So I see the point.
I think, however, that this is just as likely to be speaking metaphorically as literally about a divine person.
In fact if you look at the whole proverb it gives a different impression:
quote:
Proverbs 8.1 Does not wisdom cry out,
And understanding lift up her voice?
2 She takes her stand on the top of the high hill,
Beside the way, where the paths meet.
3 She cries out by the gates, at the entry of the city,
At the entrance of the doors:
4 “To you, O men, I call,
And my voice is to the sons of men.
...
12 “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence,
And find out knowledge and discretion.
13 The fear of the Lord is to hate evil;
Pride and arrogance and the evil way
And the perverse mouth I hate.
14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom;
I am understanding, I have strength.
15 By me kings reign,
And rulers decree justice.
16 By me princes rule, and nobles,
All the judges of the earth.
17 I love those who love me,
And those who seek me diligently will find me.
18 Riches and honor are with me,
Enduring riches and righteousness.
19 My fruit is better than gold, yes, than fine gold,
And my revenue than choice silver.
20 I traverse the way of righteousness,
In the midst of the paths of justice,
21 That I may cause those who love me to inherit wealth,
That I may fill their treasuries.
22“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old...
And it continues from there as you quoted.
This is about "wisdom" as a quality that always has existed with God, not "the Son" as a person who existed with Him.
As I see it, this is the same as "the Word" which was in the beginning with God. It is not a substance but a divine attribute, namely the divine truth, or, as here, wisdom itself. Not a substance, but a way of talking about the way that wisdom and prudence are eternal and come from God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Truly, Wisdom has "cried out by the gates, at the entry of the city, At the entrance of the doors: 'To you, O men, I call, And my voice is to the sons of men.'" but the people did not listen to her (Jesus). This prophecy has been fulfilled by the Christ of God, when, at the entrance of Jerusalem, he asked for repentance. But the people did not repent.
Actually, the text you quote shows clearly that Wisdom is not an attribute; it is divine itself. She says that He is Lord (I, Wisdom... The fear of the Lord is... I hate...). So, Wisdom is Lord. It is not the same as the attribute of wisdom rational substances can show. In fact, Wisdom has wisdom. If She is an attribute like you are saying, then how can She say that "Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom;"? She says that wisdom is hers; that wisdom is Wisdom's. So, as an attribute, wisdom belongs to all three divine persons. But as a person, She exists in relation to the Father, for "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old".
P.S. It might be interesting to read the Wisdom thread in the forum.
[ 17. May 2005, 11:34: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Actually, the text you quote shows clearly that Wisdom is not an attribute; it is divine itself. She says that He is Lord (I, Wisdom... The fear of the Lord is... I hate...). So, Wisdom is Lord.
I guess you can read it that way. She can be said to be Jesus.
I think that a more normal reading, however, would that wisdom is an eternal concept not a person. There is no problem, for example, that wisdom is usually pictured as female whereas Jesus was male. We all know that the thing itself that is being talked about is not gendered, and that the gender is just a way of picturing it (and it may also describe some deep and significant aspect of it.)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Actually, the deity has no gender; therefore we can call the deity using either male or female characteristics. So, Jesus in His deity He can be called a "she", just like God is depicted as a loving mother in Isaiah.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Absolutely.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
