Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine
- Thread starter cgaviria
- Start date
- Status
Wgw
Pray For Brussels!
- May 24, 2015
- 4,304
- 2,074
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
What @Hogshead1 is arguing from is an exaggeration of the legitimate apostolic doctrine of divine impassability. Divine impassability does not in fact preclude divine love; it also does not preclude God suffering through hypostatic union with humanity in the Person of our Lord. Impassability is rather a characteristic of the divine nature, which was united with our human nature in the Incarnation.
@Hogshead1 however is basically using a strawman argument against divine impassability in order to support his Process Theology based conception of a mutable, non-omnipotent deity, which is contrary to scripture.
Upvote
0
Actually it flows quite nicely. Trinity makes the scriptures confusing, taking verse out of context, illogical, and leaving words with no meaning. I know I believed in trinity for 25 years.
I think it goes without saying, if someone was made lord, then they were not lord, other wise they would not need to be made lord.
And that is what the verse says...
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Of course lord could not mean God, if someone was made lord, and lord meant God, then they would be made God; that would be in error.
Philippians 2:6 That word “nature” is G3444 – morphē, and means: the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; external appearance; form (outward expression).
He outwardly expressed the character of his Father, so that if we seen Jesus we seen the Father.
That's right took on the form of a servant, not king.
John 17:4-5 I would suggest studying that verse 5 with verse 24 very carefully. Maybe this will help, from my post #297...
“Here is something to think about. Jesus said, “before the world was,” why is he going all the way back there? He also said, “for You loved me before the foundation of the world.” Why is he pointing all the way back then? Did God not love him between the foundation of the world and his incarnation? And you''ll notice, this is the clue, in that same verse 24 he said, “my glory which You have given me,”, he says “have given,” but he has not received this glory yet, for he is asking for this glory “glorify Me” in verse 5. So what's he referring to?”
Numbers 11:17 (KJV) And I (God the Father) will come down and talk with thee (Moses, Jesus) there: and I (God the Father) will take of the spirit which is upon thee (Moses, Jesus, I wonder where Moses got his Spirit from), and will put it upon them (seventy men of the elders); and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.
How many Gods, I say no other thing then what scripture teach...
John 17:1,3 Jesus...lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father...that they might know thee the only true God...
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
I will get to the rest of your post but I just wanted to point out to you that "hath made" Jesus, within the context of Lord, is based on the act of being revealed as the person that God promised that he would send, in place of Moses. Hath made is to say that this person is now during the apostles time being made known to them as the Christ. That is why the disciples would say.......
To the Jews before Jesus, Moses was the go between man to God in the old testament times.
So scriptures prophesied of the Christ to comes and to be made known, meaning to be finally revealed according to Daniel's 70th week prophesy, after the building up of Jerusalem.
As Jesus would say these scriptures testify of me, I am he who God said he will send to the house of Israel.
It then goes to reason to what "hath made" means within the context of old testament prophesies being now revealed to the house of Israel in their time, as they are in the Acts of the Apostles making it know to their Jewish compatriots this revelation.
So read the verse again in context, while considering the totality of scripture, in determining the true meaning of "hath made". In conclusion "hath made" is not an act of making Jesus Lord at that moment, rather is a rallying call to the house of Israel, to believe this revelation. So "hath made" means ""hath revealed" or has made known.
Read it again in context....and ask yourself this question, why the statement....
"Therefore let ALL the house of Israel know assuredly"
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
Acts 2:36 is really saying...
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath NOW REVEALED TO YOU the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Why would the apostle make this rallying call amongst his Jewish compatriots.....
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
To make it know that the old testament prophesies are fulfilled in this man Jesus of Nazareth.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath NOW REVEALED TO YOU the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Why would the apostle make this rallying call amongst his Jewish compatriots.....
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
To make it know that the old testament prophesies are fulfilled in this man Jesus of Nazareth.
Upvote
0
Fireinfolding
Well-Known Member
- Dec 17, 2006
- 27,263
- 4,084
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
My oh my! Only giving aid. Why can't you see.
Surely you must be able to see this one...
Deuteronomy 18:18 I [Father] will raise them up a Prophet [Christ] from among their brethren, like unto thee [Moses], and will put my [Father John 8:28] words in his [Christ] mouth [Christ is the Fathers mouth]; and he [Christ] shall speak unto them all that I [Father] shall command him [Christ John 12:49-50].
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment [Deuteronomy 18:18], what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting [His Word of life]: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak [Jesus is the Word of life, the Word became flesh].
John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me [Exodus 4:15], I speak these things.
Exodus 4:15 And thou [Moses, Jesus] shalt speak unto him [Aaron, disciple], and put the words in his [disciple] mouth: and I [God the Father] will be with thy [Jesus] mouth [John 14:10], and with his [disciple] mouth [Matthew 10:20], and will teach you [Jesus John 8:28] what ye shall do. 16 And he [disciple] shall be thy [Jesus] spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he [disciple] shall be to thee [Jesus] a mouth, and thou [Jesus] shalt be to him [Jesus] as God.
You mean you can't tell who is speaking to who in Isaiah 45? Who is the anointed one? Who anointed Jesus? You can't tell Who is saying this to who either?...
Isaiah 45:13
I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives
I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
First of all my previous posts #807 and #808 rule out the faulty premise that you make below, by using the wrong definition of the words "hath made" to imply a title awarded after an inaugural event of some sort, which is dictated by time.
Therefore your statement below is faulty.
You further assert the following.....
I have noted that you highlight the word form, then you elaborate by saying that it is an outward characteristic of the Father, without it relating to the substance of the Father. The Nicene Creed states that the Father and the Son are the same substance.
Now G3444 points to the inherent, charactistsics and qualities of the Father. The verse when read in context and in its entirety strongly is suggestive of an inward and intrinsic characteristic and not specifically an outward expression as you are asserting.
Here is the verse.......
One needs to ask these questions.....
What is equality with God?
What is made of himself of no reputation?
What is thought it not robbery?
Let us take the third question first and reinforce the notion that for someone to rob God, someone must copy right or at least simulate certain internal and intrinsic chacrateristics of the invisible God, by extrinsically expressing them outwardly. If one did express the characteristics of The invisble God outwardly, then this would be identify theft as the apostle declares, but this is not so for Jesus, since God is Spirit (John 4:24) and because he holds inwardly and intrinsically these qualities without needing to express them outwardly......
And.........
The one to one express image of the Father, is not an outward expression within the natural realm so to speak, rather it is the inherent, characteristics and qualities of God who is Spirit.
If it was a mere outward expression, then the apostle would not write the following.....
thought it not robbery to be equal with God
If an outward expression was to qualify as having the same nature, then this would be identity theft, that is robbery, but the author rules out any outward expression, rather incorporates a one to one representation and not a copy or a simulated nature.
Scripture even strengthens this interpretation by declaring.....
So what is made of him no reputation?
It means by form, that is outward expression, he would shockingly play down his internal and intrinsic qualities as God, by playing the prophesied role as the suffering servant who would die on the cross at Calvary. In fact the term G3444 (nature) is highlighting internal and intensic qualifying characteristics and features of God, because the very act out of expressing outwardly the suffering servant, therefore negates the term nature from being used outwardly as you have asserted.
Finally what is equality with God?
It is the very God of the very God of being that one God-being by nature, without needing to outwardly express it or prove it. The Nicene Creed states....
Your other assertions on why Jesus said what he said is founded on the fact that he existed with the Father before the foundations of the world and within this co-eternal and co-equal relationship within the one God Being who is Spirit. The reason why I keep this answer short is because this is self answered by reason of the above spiritual manna.
Jesus...lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father...that they might know thee the only true God
As planned made of himself of no reputation
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
What do I care what the Nicene Creed says, what does that have to do with what God's word says? Are we not to follow God's word before man's creed.
Upvote
0
Fireinfolding
Well-Known Member
- Dec 17, 2006
- 27,263
- 4,084
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
First, Berrean 777, I am not speaking of three Holy Spirits. What I am talking about is three distinct personalities: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, when I am talking about the passionless Deity, I am referring to what the church fathers said, not Scripture. The classical or traditional Christian model of picture of God as he is in his won nature comes largely from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. Hence, the Second Helvetic Confession states, of the "Two Natures in Christ," that "the Divine Nature of Christ is not passible...Therefore, we do not in any way teach that the divine nature in Christ has suffered..." In fact, it was considered a major heresy to suggest that the Father had suffered. Thus, Channing remarked that "Trinitarians profess to derive some important advantages from their mode of viewing Christ. It furnished them they tell us, with an infinite atonement, for it shows then an infinite being suffering for their sins. ...When pressed with the question whether they really believe that the infinite and unchangeable God suffered and died o n the Cross, they acknowledge that tis is not true, but that Christ's human mind alone sustained the pains of death. How then have we an infinite sufferer?"I realize that Wgw is a process detractor. However, facts are facts, and his comments really aren't on target. Here is a brief synopsis of the classical model of God.
To provide some relevant background, most Christians assume there is only one model of God, one official picture of what God is like in his own nature. At present, that is definitely not true. There are at least two, classical theism and neo-classical theism, also termed process theology. Most Christians the traditional Christian model of God (classical theism) came directly out to the pages of Scripture. Absolutely not true. Let's go way back in history for a moment. The Greeks had a real appetite for metaphysics, for inquiring into what is the basic structure of reality. Is it all mind? Matter? It it changeable? In contrast, metaphysics was of little or no interest to the ancient Hebrews. The Bible, for example, tells us very little of how God is actually built. Is God all immaterial? Material? What? As the church worked its way up into the educated classes of the Greco-Roman world, it had to provide some kind of metaphysical system and level of discussion in order to survive. So the church fathers freely incorporated Hellenic concepts into their description of God. Although there were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, the Greeks as a whole had real trouble wit the physical world of time, change,relativity, and matter. More than one major school argued that change in any form, most especially movement, was a logical impossibility and therefore dos not exist. Plato was a dominant force here, arguing that the world of time and change is just a big illusion and the major source of all suffering and evil. The truly divine, “the really real,” was a wholly immaterial world of static perfection, totally immutable, wholly simple, wholly detached form the evil world of time and change.
Once these Hellenic notions were incorporated into Christianity, God was defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, omnipotent, without even the shadow of motion, the supreme cause, never the effect. I am listing almost verbatum here the description form the major creeds, such as the Westminster Confession, and the writings of the major church fathers, such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. Granted, they spoke of God's love, but it was a totally cold, unemotional love. Both Anselm and Aquinas insisted that although God might seem to us to be compassionate, he defiantly is not, in his own nature. Since God has no passion (emotion), then he could have no compassion, either. Unlike human love, God's love was totally minus any sympathy or empathy. God could have no emotion, because emotions are changes in bodily state, and God does not have a body and God does not change. Not to suffer is better than to suffer, hence, God as the most perfect being was wholly incapable of suffering, or experiencing any other negative emotion. Suggesting in any way the Father suffered was ruled out as a major heresy.
In the 20-century, this model began to be seriously questioned. If it is true that finite, creaturely attributes cannot be describe to God, then we can say only what God is not, not what God is, a point recognized by the classical theists themselves. Therefore, God emerges as an undefined blank. But who can believe in just an undefined X? If we don't give God some content, the whole concept of God is meaningless. And then much of Scripture is also meaningless, as Scripture prove ids an essentially anthropomorphic image of God as having genuine emotion, capable of change, and implies in many places that God is a physical being, by assigning just about every body part to God. Such projection is not the problem, it is the solution. All knowing is analogous knowing; we must generalize form the unfamiliar to the familiar. Now, if there is one sphere of reality we are most familiar with, it s human existence. Hence, unless there is some genuine likeness, some genuine analogy Between ourselves and the rest of reality, and this most especially includes God, we haven't even but one clue as to what is known on. Furthermore, the classical model appears to represent a very lopsided view of perfection. It is as if the church fathers went down a list of seemingly contrary adjectives, such as being vs. becoming, cause vs. effect, indifference vs. sensitivity, cause vs. effect, static vs. etc., and assigned only side to God, the side agreeing with their Hellenic concepts of perfection. But all of our experience teaches us that no actual being can be described with reference to only one side or pole here. Also, each side can be shown to be a perfection. If it is a virtue to say full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by the feelings of others. Furthermore, the classical model does not seem at all compatible with a God of love at all. Love means at a minimum to emphatically share in the feelings of others and also to derive part of the content of your being , from them. At best, it seems to present a picture of God as a Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. Also, it seemed incompatible with out modern understanding of realty, the really real, as in a constant state of flux and also relativistic,where entities are not ever solitary, but emerge out of their relationships with others. The Greeks enshrined the values of the immune and the immutable,and this also was in question. Why should it be seen as a weakness that we have needs? Why should God be seen as weak of it or she also has needs? What's wrong with God experiencing genuine pain and suffering? How can anyone other than a suffering God help? If God can't change in any way whatsoever, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God,who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can put any real faith in an indifferent Deity? If God could be just as happy,whole, and complete without a universe as with one,then why did he bother to create one and how is it to have any real significance in the life of God, when it contributes absolutely nothing to him?
The result was a new model of God in which God and the universe are mutually interrelated. God grows as the world goes. God is the supreme effect as well as cause. My favorite metaphor here is that the universe is the body of God. I can't find any other that does justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. There is a direct, immediate flow of all creaturely feelings into God, and a direct immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures. Hence, God radically transcends us, as we are total strangers to the empathic responsiveness exhibited by God. Now, there is much more to say here, but I feel I should stop for now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Secondly, when I am talking about the passionless Deity, I am referring to what the church fathers said, not Scripture. The classical or traditional Christian model of picture of God as he is in his won nature comes largely from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. Hence, the Second Helvetic Confession states, of the "Two Natures in Christ," that "the Divine Nature of Christ is not passible...Therefore, we do not in any way teach that the divine nature in Christ has suffered..." In fact, it was considered a major heresy to suggest that the Father had suffered. Thus, Channing remarked that "Trinitarians profess to derive some important advantages from their mode of viewing Christ. It furnished them they tell us, with an infinite atonement, for it shows then an infinite being suffering for their sins. ...When pressed with the question whether they really believe that the infinite and unchangeable God suffered and died o n the Cross, they acknowledge that tis is not true, but that Christ's human mind alone sustained the pains of death. How then have we an infinite sufferer?"I realize that Wgw is a process detractor. However, facts are facts, and his comments really aren't on target. Here is a brief synopsis of the classical model of God.
To provide some relevant background, most Christians assume there is only one model of God, one official picture of what God is like in his own nature. At present, that is definitely not true. There are at least two, classical theism and neo-classical theism, also termed process theology. Most Christians the traditional Christian model of God (classical theism) came directly out to the pages of Scripture. Absolutely not true. Let's go way back in history for a moment. The Greeks had a real appetite for metaphysics, for inquiring into what is the basic structure of reality. Is it all mind? Matter? It it changeable? In contrast, metaphysics was of little or no interest to the ancient Hebrews. The Bible, for example, tells us very little of how God is actually built. Is God all immaterial? Material? What? As the church worked its way up into the educated classes of the Greco-Roman world, it had to provide some kind of metaphysical system and level of discussion in order to survive. So the church fathers freely incorporated Hellenic concepts into their description of God. Although there were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, the Greeks as a whole had real trouble wit the physical world of time, change,relativity, and matter. More than one major school argued that change in any form, most especially movement, was a logical impossibility and therefore dos not exist. Plato was a dominant force here, arguing that the world of time and change is just a big illusion and the major source of all suffering and evil. The truly divine, “the really real,” was a wholly immaterial world of static perfection, totally immutable, wholly simple, wholly detached form the evil world of time and change.
Once these Hellenic notions were incorporated into Christianity, God was defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, omnipotent, without even the shadow of motion, the supreme cause, never the effect. I am listing almost verbatum here the description form the major creeds, such as the Westminster Confession, and the writings of the major church fathers, such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. Granted, they spoke of God's love, but it was a totally cold, unemotional love. Both Anselm and Aquinas insisted that although God might seem to us to be compassionate, he defiantly is not, in his own nature. Since God has no passion (emotion), then he could have no compassion, either. Unlike human love, God's love was totally minus any sympathy or empathy. God could have no emotion, because emotions are changes in bodily state, and God does not have a body and God does not change. Not to suffer is better than to suffer, hence, God as the most perfect being was wholly incapable of suffering, or experiencing any other negative emotion. Suggesting in any way the Father suffered was ruled out as a major heresy.
In the 20-century, this model began to be seriously questioned. If it is true that finite, creaturely attributes cannot be describe to God, then we can say only what God is not, not what God is, a point recognized by the classical theists themselves. Therefore, God emerges as an undefined blank. But who can believe in just an undefined X? If we don't give God some content, the whole concept of God is meaningless. And then much of Scripture is also meaningless, as Scripture prove ids an essentially anthropomorphic image of God as having genuine emotion, capable of change, and implies in many places that God is a physical being, by assigning just about every body part to God. Such projection is not the problem, it is the solution. All knowing is analogous knowing; we must generalize form the unfamiliar to the familiar. Now, if there is one sphere of reality we are most familiar with, it s human existence. Hence, unless there is some genuine likeness, some genuine analogy Between ourselves and the rest of reality, and this most especially includes God, we haven't even but one clue as to what is known on. Furthermore, the classical model appears to represent a very lopsided view of perfection. It is as if the church fathers went down a list of seemingly contrary adjectives, such as being vs. becoming, cause vs. effect, indifference vs. sensitivity, cause vs. effect, static vs. etc., and assigned only side to God, the side agreeing with their Hellenic concepts of perfection. But all of our experience teaches us that no actual being can be described with reference to only one side or pole here. Also, each side can be shown to be a perfection. If it is a virtue to say full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by the feelings of others. Furthermore, the classical model does not seem at all compatible with a God of love at all. Love means at a minimum to emphatically share in the feelings of others and also to derive part of the content of your being , from them. At best, it seems to present a picture of God as a Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. Also, it seemed incompatible with out modern understanding of realty, the really real, as in a constant state of flux and also relativistic,where entities are not ever solitary, but emerge out of their relationships with others. The Greeks enshrined the values of the immune and the immutable,and this also was in question. Why should it be seen as a weakness that we have needs? Why should God be seen as weak of it or she also has needs? What's wrong with God experiencing genuine pain and suffering? How can anyone other than a suffering God help? If God can't change in any way whatsoever, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God,who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can put any real faith in an indifferent Deity? If God could be just as happy,whole, and complete without a universe as with one,then why did he bother to create one and how is it to have any real significance in the life of God, when it contributes absolutely nothing to him?
The result was a new model of God in which God and the universe are mutually interrelated. God grows as the world goes. God is the supreme effect as well as cause. My favorite metaphor here is that the universe is the body of God. I can't find any other that does justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. There is a direct, immediate flow of all creaturely feelings into God, and a direct immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures. Hence, God radically transcends us, as we are total strangers to the empathic responsiveness exhibited by God. Now, there is much more to say here, but I feel I should stop for now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I don't follow you, Civilwarbuff. Yu say agape means "delight I n the object of love," but has absolutely nothing to do with romantic love, friendship, brotherly love, and sexuality. That sure is a major contradiction. I realize that many have misinterpreted agape as a kind of slavish duty to the other, minus any real degree of sympathetic appreciation and enjoyment. But that is an awful cold love and clod charity, too. And I really don't think it is al all with the NT has in mind.
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
You made a point by saying, "why did he bother to create one and how is it to have any real significance in the life of God, when it contributes absolutely nothing to him?"
So in this regard we are talking of purpose, significance and benfits to God, that would ultimately answer why we are all here?
You made a claim that the "The result was a new model of God in which God and the universe are mutually interrelated. God grows as the world grows."
You considered two views:
Open Theism that plays on cause and effect in regards to the future, that is partly comprised of possibilities. In Open Theism, God chooses to create a world with an open future, while in Process Theology God has created it out of necessity. So Theism is based upon a chaos theory, by initiating the system and letting it find its own equilibrium and Process Theology implies a purpose, significance and benefits for doing so.
So in Open Theism chaos theory the supreme being initiates the p cause and never the effect, which gives the perception that God has no vested interest in the outcome of the world. If we were to consider the world as a child, then we see an orphan left on his own to defend himself from a myriad of evil effects in his life time, as we have seen from the history of humanity.
We are created in the image of God and as humans if we turned out emotional and empathetic creatures, then that was the result of the chaos theory and God could not take responsibility for this cause. Theism states that God cannot be emotional, because emotion is a fickle state of mind that is dependant on external factors outside of the control of the God, who is submitted to going through the motions/emotions (rollercoaster ride).
God is a being who completely and utterly compromises himself, by placing himself wilfully in a place of weakness as is the imagery of the cross, to the point where he turns the table 180 degrees when everything seemed lost.
When I was as child growing up I liked to play backgammon by myself, I would manipulate both players and allow the opposite player to start beating me, then I would be excelled to make an epic comeback to defeat the opponent. In this life the other player is evil, that is the epitome of Satan, who God uses as a disturbance to his system that he initiated and then allows suffering of man, before reigning in supreme to quash the opponent when the opponent thinks that he has won. So there appears to be chaos arising from a runaway system. The controller who is God intervenes to make his presence known quiet deliberately, as to say, I'm still here and in control. The process requires God who is emotionally vested, to allow himself to go through sadness unparalleled. In fact if we went through the sadness of God, we would immediately die. So it is not by accident that the creatures that he created go through ups and downs by experiencing the full spectrum of emotions, after all we inherited our nature from our daddy. God does this to himself and even acknowledges his pains and places himself at the mercy of his own creation. This to me is extrodinary. Scripture points to this as follows.....
God truly wants us to mourn for him and through this mourning we are embracing him and solidifying him in our hearts.
To be saved we need to mourn for God whenever we reflect upon the cross at Calvary. If we don't, then there is no connection to God. It is like a head of the house saying come and give me heart and mourn with me with tears and sadness. (Joel 2:13-17)
I believe the above answers your following statement......
If we don't give God some content, the whole concept of God is meaningless.
God is therefore not a solitary being, rather he has emerged out of their (trinity of persona's) relationship with others and others is the human family who have also being joined to the epic love story that is the Father and the Son.
As to your following statement.....
God thrives on the very act of putting himself, in a weak state, where he can call others to mourn along with him. I mean, just look at the beatidudes and you will get the drift........
All the abide beatidudes is what God goes through and is inviting us to take part in what he goes through. After all they are the personal beatidudes of Christ and they highlight God's character with flying colours.
I totally agree with your following statement after all what I explained above.
Your points validate the existence of an infinite being who existed before time, because he created time and not merely existed with the creation of time. In saying this, he would have had within his being an eternal relationship, that has been revealed to the human family as the Father and the Son of the triune God who has narrated this epic love story by a third witness the Spirit. God is therefore not a solitary being, rather he has emerged out of their (trinity of persona's) relationship with others and others is the human family who have also being joined to the epic love story that is the Father and the Son.
What would you say if I put forth that God is explained by both Open Theism and Process theology, as is in the case where light is explained by both particle and wave theory. Now please note neither Open Theism on its own or Process theology on its own can be used to model God, in the same way wave theory on its own cannot be used to model the characteristics of light.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Wgw
Pray For Brussels!
- May 24, 2015
- 4,304
- 2,074
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Nothing that you posted is like Molinism; rather, @DrBubbaLove typoed Modalism. Modalism, basedon the doctrines of Sabellius, Praxeas, et al, and adhered to in contemporary times by, among others, the Oneness Pentecostals, posits the three prosopa are merely modes of a single person, which seems to me what you are in effect describing.
Tertullian wrote a rather compelling treatment of this error:
Wisdom from Ancient Theologians
I had intended to post it here, but several members in GT are enjoying that thread, so I thought I should post it there, along with a link.
By the way, I would note that Tertullian's rather precise description of the Trinity might of interest to @Imagican, given that it predates Nicea and Constantine by a century.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
