What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[Hoghead1]

That is not no where near what Thomas claimed. From his Summa concerning God's omnipresence this is refuted:

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Question 7, Article 1). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly.

Reply to Objection 1. God is above all things by the excellence of His nature; nevertheless, He is in all things as the cause of the being of all things; as was shown above in this article. (First Part, Question 8)

You need to look at Thomas a little harder. His claim that God is present in everything has no real significance. Rather, it means that God's providence oversees everything. Hence, Thomas states that God is "outside" creation and has no "real relationship" to it. Indeed, it is utterly impossible for God to share and participate in the world; for then God would be a component of teh world; but that is strictly ruled out, as the world would qualify God. So, when Thomas takes up the question of "immensitas are used by him to signify immanence. Presence in a place can mean bodily contact or the interior quickening of a thing or being and operating ad a definite place. Since God is neither body nor soul, the first two do not apply to God. Since God's actions do not tie him down, the third does not apply either.

 

[Hoghead1]

It has everything to do with it.

Could you explain this?

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually the diagram does a good job outlining the Trinity ontologically. What it doesn't do is discuss the relational aspects of the Trinity.

Are you assuming then that there is an authority over the Father?

 

[Hoghead1]

Oneness Pentecostals are fairly well dismissed as heretics by the majority of the churches.

Not by the PCUSA, not by mine. Anyhow, you asked for an example of a modern-day modalist.

 

[Tree of Life]

Not by the PCUSA, not by mine. Anyhow, you asked for an example of a modern-day modalist.

Note that Oneness Pentecostals, because they are modalistic, explicitly reject the Trinity.

 

[Erose]

Nope, you are failing to see the point. Three gods requires three beings. There is nothing that mandates that a personality is a being, only that a being may or may not have a personality.

Yes, but we think of God in terms of personality, not as some sort of impersonal being or abstract principle.

Uh, are you not a human being? Are you some sort of impersonal being or abstract principle?

Um, what does this have to do with the discussion?

It has everything to do with it.

Could you explain this?

Just follow the line of discussion.

 

[hedrick]

Modalism is a Trinitarian heresy, as far as I know. At least according to summaries I just checked oneness Pentecostals are non Trinitarian. Thats not a good model for modern theologians who are Trinitarian but supposedly modalist.

 

[Erose]

You need to look at Thomas a little harder. His claim that God is present in everything has no real significance. Rather, it means that God's providence oversees everything. Hence, Thomas states that God is "outside" creation and has no "real relationship" to it. Indeed, it is utterly impossible for God to share and participate in the world; for then God would be a component of teh world; but that is strictly ruled out, as the world would qualify God. So, when Thomas takes up the question of "immensitas are used by him to signify immanence. Presence in a place can mean bodily contact or the interior quickening of a thing or being and operating ad a definite place. Since God is neither body nor soul, the first two do not apply to God. Since God's actions do not tie him down, the third does not apply either.

That is a false caricature of what Thomas wrote, and what I posted refutes this. You don't have to be part of something to have a relationship with that something. Right now I'm typing this on a computer which is tied to the internet, which ties me to you, and thus we are having a real relationship, and yet I'm not part of the computer, internet, or for that matter you.

In the case of God, He must have a relationship with the universe, because He caused it to exist. He is not the universe and not part of the universe, and the universe is not part of Him. He transcends the universe, and yet because the universe exists and subsists because of His will/power, He is omnipresent. St. Thomas teaches that there is a real relationship between God and the universe.

So you are making a false representation of what Thomas claims. You may not like what he wrote, nor like his reasoning; but he makes no such claim that you claim that he claimed.

 

[Tree of Life]

Modalism is a Trinitarian heresy, as far as I know. At least according to summaries I just checked oneness Pentecostals are non Trinitarian. Thats not a good model for modern theologians who are Trinitarian but supposedly modalist.

Modalism is non-trinitarian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

 

[Erose]

Are you assuming then that there is an authority over the Father?

No. I'm stating that the diagram does not display the relations between the Divine Persons. It outlines only the ontological model of the Trinity, and not the economical model.

 

[Erose]

Modalism is a Trinitarian heresy, as far as I know. At least according to summaries I just checked oneness Pentecostals are non Trinitarian. Thats not a good model for modern theologians who are Trinitarian but supposedly modalist.

Tertullian argued against them. In his writing "Against Praxeas" he argues against a form of modalism called patripassianism, i.e. that the Father died on the cross.

 

[Hoghead1]

Tertullian argued against them. In his writing "Against Praxeas" he argues against a form of modalism called patripassianism, i.e. that the Father died on the cross.

And he also argued against the notion that God could suffer. While Tertullian attacked modalism, he still could be modalistic, as in his psychological model of the Trinity.

 

[Hoghead1]

No. I'm stating that the diagram does not display the relations between the Divine Persons. It outlines only the ontological model of the Trinity, and not the economical model.

What are you labeling as the economic model? Normally, it means the view that the threeness is just in our perception.

 

[Hoghead1]

Modalism is non-trinitarian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

No, it is not non-Trinitarian. you did not accurately read Wikipedia. Also, all this talk about heresy is way, way out of date. All heresy means is that you disagree with some church. It says nothing about the validity of your ideas. If you come right down to it, just about every one of us could be labeled a heretic. The Reformers considered the Catholics heretics, the Catholics considered teh Reformers heretics. The Reformers considered the Anabaptists heretics, and vice versa. I identify with liberal Christianity. Therefore, my agenda is to promote interfaith dialogues and mutual understanding, no all this finger pointing and denouncing.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is a false caricature of what Thomas wrote, and what I posted refutes this. You don't have to be part of something to have a relationship with that something. Right now I'm typing this on a computer which is tied to the internet, which ties me to you, and thus we are having a real relationship, and yet I'm not part of the computer, internet, or for that matter you.

In the case of God, He must have a relationship with the universe, because He caused it to exist. He is not the universe and not part of the universe, and the universe is not part of Him. He transcends the universe, and yet because the universe exists and subsists because of His will/power, He is omnipresent. St. Thomas teaches that there is a real relationship between God and the universe.

So you are making a false representation of what Thomas claims. You may not like what he wrote, nor like his reasoning; but he makes no such claim that you claim that he claimed.

Again, I find you are jumping the gun here. Thomas himself clearly stated that God is "outside" creation and has no "real relationship" to it. Also, as I already showed you, Thomas is quite specific that God is not omnipresent.

 

[Erose]

And he also argued against the notion that God could suffer. While Tertullian attacked modalism, he still could be modalistic, as in his psychological model of the Trinity.

You have very wide views of modalism and tritheism. Far too wide.

Anyway Tertullian is right, God is His divinity cannot suffer. It required one of the Divine Persons becoming Man, for a Divine Person to suffer.

 

[Hoghead1]

Modalism is a Trinitarian heresy, as far as I know. At least according to summaries I just checked oneness Pentecostals are non Trinitarian. Thats not a good model for modern theologians who are Trinitarian but supposedly modalist.

Yes, but as I just said in another post, all this "heresy" talk is outmoded. Also, modalism is not anti-Trinitarian, as it honors a threeness to God. The Father, Son , and Spirit are all God in modalism, all aspects of one personality, rather than denoting three personalities. Anti-Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian would mean something different; it would mean denying that the Son and/or Spirit are God.

 

[Hoghead1]

You have very wide views of modalism and tritheism. Far too wide.

Anyway Tertullian is right, God is His divinity cannot suffer. It required one of the Divine Persons becoming Man, for a Divine Person to suffer.

No, I do not. I'm right on target here. Did it ever occur to you that you might be off target here? Have you ever read anything about the psychological models of the Trinity or what Sabellius actually claimed?

 

[Erose]

Again, I find you are jumping the gun here. Thomas himself clearly stated that God is "outside" creation and has no "real relationship" to it. Also, as I already showed you, Thomas is quite specific that God is not omnipresent.

Actually I showed you that you are wrong. Thomas is quite specific in the First Part, Question 8 that God IS omnipresent. I actually supplied you with a quote from that question where Thomas specifically states this to be true.

Look all I can tell you is that you are wrong. I really have no idea how you can get from Thomas claiming that God is omnipresent that He taught God is not omnipresent. I really cannot figure out your logic here.

 

[Hoghead1]

Note that Oneness Pentecostals, because they are modalistic, explicitly reject the Trinity.

They do not reject the Trinity. They simply have a different understanding of it. They hold the that Father, Son, and Spirit are all God. Hence, they are definitely Trinitarian. However, they feel these represent different aspects or roles of one personality, not three separate ones.