|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: How much of Western Christianity is Unitarian?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Is there a reference for the spiritual gift of arrogant condescension?
First Shipofoolsians 11:28
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Well I'm happy to define a biological species as a group of semapharonts interconnected by tokogenetic relationships, but only connected to other semapharonts by phylogenetic relationships.
But I wouldn't want to claim it as English ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Is there a reference for the spiritual gift of arrogant condescension?
First Shipofoolsians 11:28
That implies that a Second Letter will be sadly necessary.
And Ken does it again ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Has anyone got an authorised English translation?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Esmeralda
Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582
|
Posted
To get us back to somewhere near the OP, I'd like to add to ken's admirably comprehensive list of British unitarians, the Christadelphians to whom my husband's family all belong. They are explicitly unitarian and base this on the Bible, which they say does not teach Trinitarianism (and indeed it doesn't, as such, though the seeds of Trinitarianism are there if you want to look for them).
Christadelphians (along with some modern Anabaptists/Mennonites) do not accept the historic creeds as true or binding. With which I have some sympathy, as I find the creeds quite unsatisfactory in some respects, notably the 'Jesus-shaped hole' in the middle of them as they jump straight from 'born of the Virgin Mary' to 'suffered under Pontius Pilate' without any room for Jesus' life, ministry and and teaching, leaving our faith significantly unbalanced. Of course they were formulated to address the theological questions of their time, not of ours - but their validity is a thread all of its own, if someone wishes to start it (I'm sure there must have been several before).
[ 28. November 2006, 15:40: Message edited by: Esmeralda ]
--------------------
I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.
http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/
Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think you can ever figure how much of Christianity is unitarian becaue many of us don't have a clue what we believe or what you'd call it. I'd say there's one God and humans understand (or rather don't understand) three aspects of him. I think someone told me I was heretical last time I said that. Whatever.
I think that your statement here is pretty representative, Gwai.
In my experience the average Christian just thinks in terms of one God.
When they are reminded of the Trinity they don't deny it, they are just confused. They are not sure whether they pray to the Father or to Jesus. But they do think that Jesus and the Father are somehow two but also somehow the same.
I'm not sure if that is unitarian or not.
If you go with what people's first impulse is, then I would say that it is definitely unitarian - they say to themselves "Please God, help me get out of this jam!"
No one intuitively says "Please Father, deliver me for the sake of Your Son by Your Holy Spirit."
At least, no one in the movies ever says this.
--------------------
"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
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
How about "mutual indwelling" as the English rendering of perichoresis?
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I've never found the Trinity either easy to understand or believe, but I recently read this in "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" by Vladimir Lossky:
"The highest point of revelation, the dogma of the Holy Trinity, is pre-eminently an antinomy. To attain to the contemplation of this primordial reality in all its fullness, it is necessary to reach the goal which is set before us, to attain to the state of deification..."
This explanation satisfies me, because I am able to take Lossky's word for it that the Trinity is essentially a paradox until one reaches a sufficient state of theosis to fully contemplate it. So my lack of understanding is appropriate to my state of spiritual development. I don't think the subject will ever trouble me again. I hope to grow enough in spirituality to fully appreciate it either in this life or the next.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Can I try again to get at the difference.
Maybe given the question: Are there Three Gods or One? The Orthodox would refuse to accept the question in that form, since neither represents truth. I would simply say One. Period.
So I can see how that may sound Unitarian, and this is exacerbated by the fact that well known unitarian sects (and I was a JW) also deny that Jesus is God. So people lump the two together. But logically you can be unitarian and believe that Jesus was God.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think you can ever figure how much of Christianity is unitarian becaue many of us don't have a clue what we believe or what you'd call it. I'd say there's one God and humans understand (or rather don't understand) three aspects of him. I think someone told me I was heretical last time I said that. Whatever.
Whether anyone considers you heretical or not I think your understanding is sufficient because Christianity is still a monotheistic faith. There is only one God which we experience as a Trinity. I don't think anyone can say more than that because we aren't capable of understanding God in His essence.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
My "feeling" is this, dear anteater:
It seems to me that some say "there is one divine essence" and they mean that there is one "something" which the three divine persons "possess" in common. But if this "something" is one, then this is unitarianism and not trinitarianism. It's one thing to say, as the fathers said, that there is one divine essence, like there is one human essence, and another to say that yes, there is one divine essence and this is our monotheism, but there is not one human essence, but many, because there are many humans.
The way I see it, it's a misunderstanding of what the ancient church meant by "one essence". Some kept the phrase but changed the meaning so that it no longer is orthodox!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
However you slice it, Andreas, I believe in one God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
But if this "something" is one, then this is unitarianism and not trinitarianism.
From my point of view, the position you're espousing looks like unitarianism itself. You're saying, unless I've got you entirely wrong, that the Father is one substance, and that the Son and Spirit are distinct substances. I think I would call that unitarianism (and tritheism).
(I had thought that the West and East had agreed that their formulations of the Creed were equivalent. If they aren't then the trouble goes back even further than Augustine.)
It may be true that the West has Antiochine tendencies in its theology. But I think that in trying to avoid the excesses of the Antiochine school you are in danger of plunging into the excesses of the Alexandrian school.
In speaking of a union, you imply that the union is logically subsequent to the existence of three persons who thus could conceivably exist independently of each other. Or rather, you imply this of the Father (hence unitarianism). It seems to me that (subject to the necessity of counterbalancing statements) the existence of each person is dependent upon and inherent in the existence of the others (although the relationship is asymmetrical in that the Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds).
Note that I am by no means a scholar.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But logically you can be unitarian and believe that Jesus was God.
More than logically. Jesus is the one only God. In Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily. This is the way I see 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
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
However you slice it, Andreas, I believe in one God.
Has the Creed changed and nobody notified me? Because I still believe in one God the Father... and in one Lord Jesus Christ... and in the Holy Spirit.
In all seriousness, I ask you, why do you cut the "I believe in one God" from the Creed? Because the seen in context it does not say "I believe in one God. period."
--------------------
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 Dafyd:
In speaking of a union, you imply that the union is logically subsequent to the existence of three persons who thus could conceivably exist independently of each other. Or rather, you imply this of the Father (hence unitarianism).
No, it's not logically subsequent, because this is the LIFE of the three divine persons, they live in each other. There is no individualistic logically subsequent take on this, because when we bring one of them to our minds, the other two come to our minds at the same time.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In all seriousness, I ask you, why do you cut the "I believe in one God" from the Creed? Because the seen in context it does not say "I believe in one God. period."
Whatever it goes on to say, does not contradict the first part. There is only one God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
It's like saying "there is only".... Only what? You can't cut a sentence in the middle and claim that the first part is true, because it is not independent of the second part. And, by the way, the Creed does not say "I believe in only one God the Father..."
I still don't understand how you interpret the creed's first "one" to refer to the entire trinity instead of God the Father. I believe in ONE God the Father... AND in ONE Lord Jesus Christ...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So you're a tritheist? Or is Jesus not God, and you're an Arian?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
No, I am a trinitarian. You know, let them be one like we are one.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is this is a new meaning of the word "English" of which I was previously unaware?
"Andreas-ish" perhaps, in which English words have a hidden meaning known only to Andreas.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, I am a trinitarian. You know, let them be one like we are one.
Except we aren't, and they are.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The question here is whether God is a unity or a union. The Orthodox voted for the latter, condemning the former.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Since the Nicene Creed begins:
quote:
We believe in one God...
I'm a little puzzled by your claim that unitarianism means believing that God is numerically one.
...in one God the Father! The "one" in that place of the Creed is about the person of the Father alone, and not about the entire trinity.
If your interpretation is right, then the English translators have a lot to answer for.
Because the structure of the Nicene creed is clear:
We believe in one god:
- the father
- the son
- the Holy spirit
John
[ 28. November 2006, 17:45: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Except we aren't, and they are.
First of all, some are. Or else Christianity would be nonsense. But anyways, the important thing is that we can become one like they are one. Don't you see what I am saying?
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is this is a new meaning of the word "English" of which I was previously unaware?
"Andreas-ish" perhaps, in which English words have a hidden meaning known only to Andreas.
John
That was completely uncalled for. Why are you attacking me this way?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
No I don't see what you're saying. The Father and the Son are one because the Father is the cause and ground and end of the Son. The Father and the Spirit are one because the Father is the cause and ground and end of the Spirit. The Spirit and the Son are one because they are both caused and grounded in, and end in, the Father.
This is not true of any two human beings.
Our oneness is not like their oneness.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
If your interpretation is right, then the English translators have a lot to answer for.
Because the structure of the Nicene creed is clear:
We believe in one god:
- the father
- the son
- the Holy spirit
John
This is an abusive change to the creed.
It doesn't say in:the-the-the, but :in-and in-and in.
We believe:
-in one God the Father
-and in one Lord Jesus Christ
-and in the Spirit the Holy
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
Can anyone explain in simple terms that I can understand how one can be a Unitarian and still believe that Jesus was God. I thought those positions were mutually contradictory, but comments on this thread suggest otherwise. It seems like I really don't know what the terms mean at all (and I suspect I'm not the only one).
I went to a Unitarian church, once and noticed that they called the Lord's prayer 'the Prayer of Jesus' and various things like that. I assumed this was because they did not accept that Jesus was God, but maybe that was too simplistic an interpretation.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Can anyone explain in simple terms that I can understand how one can be a Unitarian and still believe that Jesus was God.
One could think Jesus is God, and that "The Father" and "The Spirit" are just different names or aspects of Jesus. I think that's what the Swedenborgians think; Freddy will correct me if I'm wrong.
I also seem to remember that some pentecostal denominations in the deep south take this particular stance.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I'm not intending to attack you personally -- that would be a breach of the 10C.
I am reflecting on the fact that from the perspective I have as a writer and editor of English, you frequently use English words (theological words) as if they have a meaning known only to you, which is certainly not the normal meaning in English. SOmetimes your understanding is based on etymology -- where the word came from and what the (greek) parent meant -- in blithe disregard of the fact that the word no longer means that in current usage.
I am also, I suppose, reflecting the fact that many of the Orthodox on these boards, seem to believe that much of the time what you say is not standard Orthodox interpretation or theology. I choose to believe you are not willfully misrepresenting the Orthodox concensus but have an unconventional understanding of what the words mean as they are used in contemporary english.
Because in communication on an open board, words are used for their plain meaning today, not what they meant once, not what their parents meant, not to mean whatever the writer means, however well intentioned.
The subtle distinctions you reflect (I presume accurately) flowing from an initmate knowledge of greek words do not have any accurate counterparts in english. You suggest implicitly that theology can only validly be written in Greek, since only in greek can the necessary disinctions and issues be articulated. I can't go with that -- I can't even go with your implicit assumption that the greek (language) formularies are the only defining ones, so that only those who are fluent greek speakers are able and entitled to talk about the issues they raise, and that only those who speak greek can really understand what the faith is or express it -- which would have to be in greek of course, since all other languages fail to translate greek perfectly and exactly.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
If your interpretation is right, then the English translators have a lot to answer for.
Because the structure of the Nicene creed is clear:
We believe in one god:
- the father
- the son
- the Holy spirit
John
This is an abusive change to the creed.
It doesn't say in:the-the-the, but :in-and in-and in.
We believe:
-in one God the Father
-and in one Lord Jesus Christ
-and in the Spirit the Holy
Then that sounds like I believe in A, B, and C.
Wouldn't that either be 1 God (Father) and then two other things? Or 3 Gods?
It doesn't sound like 1 God.
Although I was always taught that the Nicene Creed said that there was one God, with three somethings that I never have quite understood...
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
John
This does not answer why you used my name to comment a post about a word another man wrote. Wasn't the post you commented on about the word "circumincession"? I did not use that word.
PataLeBon
This is the question here, whether what you have been taught is historically accurate or not!
[ 28. November 2006, 18:10: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Andreas, do you even know what a strawman argument is?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
One could think Jesus is God, and that "The Father" and "The Spirit" are just different names or aspects of Jesus. I think that's what the Swedenborgians think; Freddy will correct me if I'm wrong.
Not different aspects. That would be modalism. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up one God in the same sense that soul, body and activity make up one person. As the Athanasian Creed says:
quote:
For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
Jesus is God as He is visible and understandable to us.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, it's not logically subsequent, because this is the LIFE of the three divine persons, they live in each other.
So you believe that there is a unity of life rather than a union of lives.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't mean to misrepresent you, Freddy. But when you say "God as he is visible and understandable to us" it sure sounds like modalism to me. Can you flesh out the difference between the Swedenborgian position and modalism?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I think some of you should cut Andreas a bit of slack especially where it comes to his choice of words. Remember that English isn't his first language and he does an excellent job in communicating quite complex themes in our language. I wish I had as good a grasp of another language!
It seems to me that trinitarianism walks a razor's edge between modalism on the one side and tritheism on the other, both of which must be wrong. So I don't quite get Andreas' point. How, in a monotheistic religion can there be anything but one God?
After the rise of Christianity, Rabbinic Judaism defined God in absolute monotheistic terms which it had never used earlier in its history. Christians believe in the Trinity of hypostases, personae or masks of the one God, but it remains one God. That is an absolute principle of Christianity which it shares with Judaism and Islam.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I don't mean to misrepresent you, Freddy. But when you say "God as he is visible and understandable to us" it sure sounds like modalism to me. Can you flesh out the difference between the Swedenborgian position and modalism?
Sure.
Here is a definition of modalism from Theopedia:
quote:
Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the heretical belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes. This is in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God never exists as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time, he can only manifest himself as one person at any specific time. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.
So in modalism God manifest Himself in different roles, but never at the same time.
The New Church teaches, by contrast, that God continually acts as one, just as any person acts as one person, with the soul, or inner person, acting by means of the body, or outer person. In God the soul is the Father, the body is the Son, and the activity is the Holy Spirit.
The Father and Holy Spirit are not manifestations of God - the Son is the only manifestation, which is why He is called the Logos, and is said to have been "going forth from of old, from everlasting" (Micah 5.2). The act of manifesting, however, is the Holy Spirit, so it is described and visualized in various ways, such as by a dove, or fire, or breath, or wind, but never a person.
I think that this is quite different from modalism, and that it could be called unitarian, but that it still acknowledges Jesus as God. You could read more here.
--------------------
"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
Sabelianism is one form of Modalism, not the wholeness of Modalism.
--------------------
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:
Sabelianism is one form of Modalism, not the wholeness of Modalism.
It would be a good idea to write in to Theopedia and let them know.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
To be fair, Freddy, the external link at the bottom of the Theopedia entry for Modalism does link to basictheology.com, where they also mention Sabellianism, describing it as an "extension of the Trinitarian error of Modalism". But I think we may be getting off the point.
I have to say, I think Andreas has made an excellent argument for three distinct persons making up the Godhead by using the simile of human-kind "one-ness", but especially with his demonstration of the Nicene creed. Looking at the English text of the creed again, it does certainly seem to portray the belief in three at least somewhat separate entities.
Andreas, how does that still qualify as being One God, rather than Three Gods?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
it does certainly seem to portray the belief in three at least somewhat separate entities.
Of course it does. To deny this would be modalism. I don't think most Christians who claim to be trinitarian would deny this. But the "simile of human-kind 'one-ness'" ends up with the opposite problem: tritheism. It seems to presume that there is a genus called "divinity" in which there can be more than one member.
[ 28. November 2006, 22:04: Message edited by: FCB ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
It seems to presume that there is a genus called "divinity" in which there can be more than one member .
But there can't or it wouldn't be monotheism.
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
All models of the Trinity are defective in some respects .... sun / heat / light; 3 men, one nature; triangles, parenting and breathing, voice / transmitter / sound .... you name it they all have holes in them. Lesson .... don't reify the model .... it's an approximation. The only appreciation we really can have is in worship .... and that's often beyond words.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Gregory:
All models of the Trinity are defective in some respects .... sun / heat / light; 3 men, one nature; triangles, parenting and breathing, voice / transmitter / sound .... you name it they all have holes in them. Lesson .... don't reify the model .... it's an approximation. The only appreciation we really can have is in worship .... and that's often beyond words
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
All models of the Trinity are defective in some respects .... sun / heat / light; 3 men, one nature; triangles, parenting and breathing, voice / transmitter / sound .... you name it they all have holes in them. Lesson .... don't reify the model .... it's an approximation. The only appreciation we really can have is in worship .... and that's often beyond words.
Which is something that I at least, run into again and again.
I can't explain to Andreas (or anyone else for that matter) what I believe about the Trinity because you are asking me to put an experience of worship into words.
And I simply can't find the words to explain that.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
That's fine. Very Orthodox! My saint (St. Gregory of Nazianzen) said that those who pry risk going mad, (or boring the pants off everyone else which is probably just as bad).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
That's fine. Very Orthodox! My saint (St. Gregory of Nazianzen) said that
those who pry risk going mad,
(or boring the pants off everyone else which is probably just as bad).
But did it rhyme when he said it?
--------------------
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 Professor Kirke:
I have to say, I think Andreas has made an excellent argument for three distinct persons making up the Godhead by using the simile of human-kind "one-ness",
Andreas has often made this argument. I am mystified as to how it could be seen as a good argument. It means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in the same sense that you and I are one. It amounts to saying that there is no such thing as polytheism. Would anyone really make that argument?
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
but especially with his demonstration of the Nicene creed. Looking at the English text of the creed again, it does certainly seem to portray the belief in three at least somewhat separate entities.
That can't be denied. The ancient fathers, in their zeal to abolish Arianism, made a slight error there, in my opinion.
--------------------
"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
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
Andreas has often made this argument. I am mystified as to how it could be seen as a good argument. It means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in the same sense that you and I are one.
I don't think this follows at all. It's like saying Jesus is God's son in the same way that my son is my son. It is entirely possible for the divine persons to have a mutual indwelling which is inconceivable for humans.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
"Son" is a potentially misleading term, (not that we should stop using it!). In "Son" of God it does not mean biological origin (contra Islam). However, Anteater's comment about mutual indwelling is spot on.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
