- May 24, 2015
- 4,304
- 2,074
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
The Catholic Church has imposed it's definition that I do not believe is correct. They have offered that deity is reserved for God ALONE. I don't accept this definition.
Once again, you attack the Roman Catholics without cause, given that the Orthodox soteriology of theosis, or deification, is also strictly speaking per Thomas Aquinas, and indeed by virtue of the RCs and Orthodox sharing key Theosis-declaring saints, like St. Athanasius, a Roman Catholic doctrine. So in fact the Catholics do not "offer" what you claim; rather, what they do offer, along with Orthodox, Protestant and Assyrian Christians, is a rejection of polytheism in favour of the correct, Biblical doctrine of monotheism.
Since I firmly believe that God 'created' His Son, I would offer that one of the names you ask for but are obviously NOT going to accept, is: Jesus Christ. His Son. Instead of whatever is a part of God MUST be God, how about God creating a lesser God by creating His Son.
To insist that God "created" his son is to reject the true Sonship of our Lord, since it is the nature of a Son to be begotten (or adopted, which is what we can hope for through theosis). The Orthodox position, the Nicene Creed, correctly says that our Lord was "begotten, not made." However, he is not a separate deity by virtue of being coessential with the Father.
Now, on your next point, the idea that God could "create" a "lesser God" is polytheistic unless you clarify that this lesser divinity is not God according to essence or ontology, but rather, according to energy. Why? Because, as you like to write in capital letters, "God CAN NOT CHANGE!"
Whereas there is no external constraint preventing God from creating a subordinate deity that is ontologically God, this would introduce change into immutable the divine nature. One could make a case a philosophical case that in subdividing the divine essence, God would cease to be God, something which you have emphatically (and indeed correctly) stressed is impossible.
So what you are proposing is directly contradictory to the very theological principles you have frequently screamed at us, in all capital letters, in an effort to score points against the Holy Trinity, the Roman Catholic Church, or other issues you find contentious.
Since everyone that professes to believe in 'trinity' insists that God consists of three persons, that His Son, being LIKE Him, MUST be a one third PART of God, let us consider this:
A King is SINGULAR. But when he has a son that son become heir to his kingdom. But so long as the father remains KING, the son can ONLY be PRINCE.
If a duck can only produce ducks. So many insist that God's son can only be GOD. I offer a different perspective in that, if we can create such isms and insist that they MUST be TRUE, my idea of a King and his son being PRINCE is just as logical and FITS the Bible more precisely than the idea of 'three persons equaling ONE God'.
This is an amusing argument but one which rather fails to be convincing, in part because the King/Prince dichotomy is arbitrary, and one could point to regimes where sovereignity is shared, for example, the Byzantine Empire that you enjoyed criticizing so much was actually a tetrarchy under St. Constantine, who used the tetrarchical system introduced by Diocletian to subdivide the Empire among his sons, and to phase them into power in an orderly way.
One could also point to examples of a reigning King abdicating in favour of their son, while remaining nominally a King; this is not unknown.
However, the main problem with your argument is at once again, you fail to properly consider the nature of the divine essence, or indeed the meaning of the word "prosopon."
But let's insert the word 'god' in place of prince. For Christ openly stated that the Father is GREATER than the Son.
The Father is greater than the Son by virtue of generation; the Father begets the Son.
Therefore, if there is ANY practicality in labeling the Son 'God', wouldn't it of a necessity make the Son 'god' instead of "God"? Basically a 'lesser god' than His Father?
Only if we ignore John 1:1 and several other sacred verses.
Take all that we are offered into consideration: SENT by God, CREATED by God, all that He possesses was GIVEN Him by God. The Father is greater than the Son. Things that ONLY the Father knows. Heck, the word SON itself. Isn't it OBVIOUS that Christ is NOT 'equal' to His Father? And don't we ALL KNOW that the Father IS GOD?
That the prosopa of the Trinity are not equal does not preculde them from being of one essense and being one God.
Now, do we really all know the Father is God? Earlier you rejected Roman Catholic monotheism and insisted that God could create other subordinate gods, and that Jesus Christ was a "lesser God." You have failed to clarify this in accordance with the Shema or the First and Second Commandments; you have argued with us vehemently when we have insisted a creature, by your own standards, cannot be God according to ontology or essence.
I am not accusing you of intentionally subscribing to polytheism, but your statements on the one hand have the effect or implication of a polytheistic theological scheme, and are in effect refuted by your own arguments elsewhere in defense of monotheism. Which is why I urge you to think this through; if you wish to reject the Trinity, that is your right, but I belive you should at least try to make the case using a more consistent argument.
No man has EVER SEEN God at ANY TIME. Not my words. Yet we KNOW that there were THOUSANDS that SAW Christ. God CANNOT die. But Christ did. And remained DEAD for THREE DAYS. So if Christ were TRULY 'fully man/fully God, in order to BE 'fully God', that would mean that GOD died. God CAN'T DIE.
Once again, you do something which you have done in several other threads, which is exceedingly tiresome, and that is, you falsely accuse us of the Christological error of Monophysitism; not the subtle Miaphysite Christology of the Oriental Orthodox, but an actual Theopaschite Eutychian Christological error of the sort that all mainstream Christian churches consider to be heresy, based on either the Council of Chalcedon, or in the case of the Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox churches, equivalent anathemas directed against Eutyches.
Now, if we actually believed as did Eutyches that the humanity of our Lord had dissolved into his Divinity, or if we went beyond Eutyches and insisted in a manner like the Docetae that our Lord was entirely Divine and not Human, your argument against Theopaschitism would be entirely correct and accurate.
However, as has been stressed repeatedly, this is not our belief; we believe that the humanity and divnity of our Lord are joined in a hypostatic union, and it was the human nature which was mutable and which died, thus protecting divine impassability.
But back to the question. I do not know how many 'gods' may be in existence. I know that I worship ONE God. But as far as most have insisted: GOD CAN DO ANYTHING. Certainly if this has a SEMBLANCE of truth to it, He could certainly create a 'being' or 'entity' and place upon it the title of 'god'.
I have hears some say: God can DO ANYTHING. Including lying and dying, He simply chooses NOT to do these things. So if this is true, certainly those same people wouldn't DENY that if God desired, He could create 'other gods'?
So, do you or do you not worship Jesus Christ? If you do, how do you reconcile this with your statement that there is only one God, and with the Second Commandment?
Also, are you now arguing that God in fact is omnipotent? Or are you simply trying to attack Trinitarians by using our belief in an omnipotent, single God to basically make an allegation about our belief systems which is in fact contrary to our belief? One might fear that you are simply now attempting to claim divine omnipotence, cynically and while continuing to deny it, as a rationale for attempting to refute the Trinity from another angle, a different angle from that you yourself subscribe to, while ignoring the fact that we believe God to be immutable, and that we believe lying for example is incompatible woth the divine nature. I hope this is not the case, but when you make a statement like the above it is very difficult to accept it at face value.
Upvote
0