Islam vs Trinity

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I realize that that is a not uncommon interpretation of Abraham's visitors. But there are many verses in the Bible indicating that no one can see God the Father and live. Here is one example:

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

The little bit that the passage reveals is entirely relevant, in my reading, to homousianism and trinitarian monotheism:
  • Abraham experiences a theophany, a visitation or appearance of God
  • Theophanies need not necessarily be a direct appearance of God (e.g. a burning bush). They are not incarnations.
  • Three persons approach Abraham
  • Abraham greets and appeals to one singular Lord, not multiple strangers
  • One God responds to Abraham, not God and others
That's it. No other information is needed. This is the concept I find to be most pertinent behind homoousianism: distinct persons, one Being, without which I know of no other way to truly adopt trinitarian monotheism. We can go further and emphasize the threeness of the individuals as well, and all the better for trinitarians. We don't have to believe these are a direct appearance of the Persons of God, or that this is what God looks like. In the icon of the trinity supplied earlier, the visitors are, I believe, interpreted to be angels in actuality, and not the Persons. This is why it's a typological icon, a portrait, not an incarnation.

So, the better interpretation of Abraham's theophany is that the visitors were the pre-incarnate Christ and two angels. Then the 2 angels proceeded to meet his nephew Lot in Sodom.

I'm curious, where does this assertion come from?

It may be fair to say that that the concept of Being (Ousia) transcending the distinction between coequal, coeternal Persons agrees with the Pseudo-Athanasian creed. My understanding is that that has been a point of discrepancy between Eastern and Western understanding of the Trinity. EO believe that an essence is not something that exists independently.

This assertion I don't understand. Existence preceding essence is the basis of existentialism, no? Nobody can exist without their essence. If we did not have essence, none of us would be what we are.

God the Father is the Being or the essence from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

I'm of a comparable position: the Father speaks the Word of His Power, upholding all created things, created and "framed" by the Word.

The issue can be looked at as follows: Does the transcendent God become immanent in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Or does the transcendent Father become immanent in the Son and the Holy Spirit? I think the correct position is that Christ and the Holy Spirit immanently reveal themselves; God the Father only reveals himself immanently vicariously through the Son and Spirit.

It's my understanding that the filioque can actually be reconciled, but this doesn't mean we can expect the same to apply to the East and West. As for me, I have some reasons to believe that "from the Father, through the Son" is agreeable, but this is going way beyond the scope of this thread.

And the other important question is: which of these models can be better understood by a Muslim? This is the subject of the OP.

Asserting the monotheism of trinitarian belief is absolutely mandatory. Currently I do not know any other way to establish that trinitarianism is monotheistic, beside the basic idea of homoousianism, interpreted as "same in being," as I'm presenting here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Supporter
May 10, 2011
10,484
3,582
Twin Cities
✟725,021.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Here is my opinion as someone that called himself a Muslim for about 10 years.

After taking Luther's Catechism, I was totally confused about the trinity. I could never get a satisfactory answer for how it could be 3 gods but not pagan.

Islam solved all of that for me by saying there is only God period. No children or divine helpers. It was an easy conversion because they believe in the OT and the Gospels. They believe Jesus is The Christ, was born of a virgin, and died sinless, and ascended straight to heaven.

That is very close to Messianic Christianity. They acknowledge they worship the same God as Moses, Abraham, Jesus, and all the prophets. They came into a land of Paganism and converted the people into worshipping one God.

What brought me back was my sin. I realized I needed an advocate when I see God at the end of my life. In Islam, they believe in the last day, the day of judgment. But they believe a scale is held up weighing your good deeds against your bad deeds. But it is also said that believing in one God breaks the scale. God is always described as "All forgiving, All merciful." That eludes to some sort of salvation.

I'm not here to push Islam but to show that we have more in common religiously than our wars indicate.

Both the ancient Church and Islam slaughtered pagans and sew Jerusalem as their holy place. I heard a conspiracy theory once that The Pope at the time furnished Mohammed with the supplies he would need to start his mission to convert the Pagans. Then, after his revelation in the cave, he went another way.
 
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Nevertheless, is that not what the NT presents in the above Scriptures?

Likewise, is lack of conflict with the creeds enough? Is it not the Scriptures which are the authority and with which we must agree regarding the nature of the Trinity, which Scriptures present the personhoods of three distinct and separate divine agents?

The Son is sent by the Father, in the Father's name (John 5:23, 36, 43).

The Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26).

THe Spirit is subject to the Son as well as to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26)

Again, Jesus shows three distinct and separate persons in the Trinity. . .persons don't send themselves, they send a separate person.

I still don't see any reason or basis for your assertion.

[Luk 2:49 NKJV] 49 ... "Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?"

The Word always goes about doing the Father's work. This speaks of unity. I don't profess separateness.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,309
-
✟678,702.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Existence preceding essence is the basis of existentialism, no? Nobody can exist without their essence. If we did not have essence, none of us would be what we are.
God's essence could not transcend God. Nothing existed before God. God the Father did not originate from a divine essence.

I'm of a comparable position: the Father speaks the Word of His Power, upholding all created things, created and "framed" by the Word.
We agree.

Asserting the monotheism of trinitarian belief is absolutely mandatory. Currently I do not know any other way to establish that trinitarianism is monotheistic, beside the basic idea of homoousianism, interpreted as "same in being," as I'm presenting here.
We agree that asserting Christian monotheism is mandatory. Islam believes in one God / Allah who is absolutely transcendent. He communicates with human beings only indirectly through a created angel (Gabriel) and a written word (Quran). They believe that God has 99 names / characters / attributes. The most famous of these characters is that "God is Great" which they declare all the time.

The one character of God that was not mentioned in the Quran is his most essential character, namely that God is Love. Their God could not be loving because He is only transcendent. According to Brother Rachid's definition, he is basically dead. In Christianity, God is Love because He is imminent among people. He communicates with us through his Word, Jesus Christ, and his Holy Spirit.

I think this way of explaining Christian monotheism can be understandable to a Muslim? In the debate videos you heard were there any points that that model would not answer or questions that it would raise?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Clare73 said:
The Scriptures present the personhoods of three distinct and separate divine agents:
The Son is sent by the Father, in the Father's name (John 5:23, 36, 43).

The Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26)

Again, Jesus shows three distinct and separate persons in the Trinity. . .persons don't send themselves, they send a separate person.
I still don't see any reason or basis for your assertion.

I don't profess separateness.
That's what I'm not understanding in light of the Scriptures above.

How should those Scriptures be stated to mean separate persons to you?
Because as they appear in the manuscripts, I don't see that they could mean anything else.
 
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's what I'm not understanding in light of the Scriptures above.

How should those Scriptures be stated to mean separate persons to you?
Because as they appear in the manuscripts, I don't see that they could mean anything else.

Your assumption appears to be derived from materialism: if you see three distinct physical people in front of you, you assume that they must be separate because material is all there is.

For spiritual & theological matters we are not dealing with material only.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Clare73 said:
Is it not the Scriptures which are the authority and with which we must agree regarding the nature of the Trinity, which Scriptures present the personhoods of three distinct and separate divine agents?
The Son is sent by the Father, in the Father's name (John 5:23, 36, 43).

The Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26)

Again, Jesus shows three distinct and separate persons in the Trinity. . .persons don't send themselves, they send a separate person.
Your assumption appears to be derived from materialism: if you see three distinct physical people in front of you, you assume that they must be separate because material is all there is.
For spiritual & theological matters we are not dealing with material only.
Fair enough. . .

But on what Scriptural basis do we assume otherwise?

We make no other spiritual assumptions without a Biblical basis.
So if it is not to be based simply on human assumption, how should those Scriptures be stated to mean separate persons to you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
God's essence could not transcend God. Nothing existed before God. God the Father did not originate from a divine essence.

Firstly, I need to clarify that I did not claim that the essence transcends the Persons -- I made a point to clarify that earlier, that there is no distinction between God and the Persons, individually, so that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God. I meant to say only that God transcends the distinction between Persons.

Ok, so now we're getting in pretty deep here. We have to decide what framework to use when interpreting the relationship between essence and entity. While I have some platonic leanings, I'm not fully platonic, and can side with Aristotle, partly, on the form of a thing being of the thing itself, rather than an ideal, immutable Form transcending the thing itself, which has some unfortunate implications for trinitarianism IMO, because in platonism, the thing itself is somehow *less than* the immutable, ideal Form that is shared among all the things. Platonism isn't the basis of this idea concerning homoousianism -- it's only comparable.

In the Aristotlean sense, you have your own essence, without which, you would cease to be what you are -- you would at the least lose your identity if your essence were altered. Now presume there are additional, exact copies of yourself in existence: we could almost say you all share the same essence as we can't discern a difference between you or your copies. But, assuming there is no world of forms here, no ideal Form that transcends you all, if your essence were changed, your copies would remain the same, though we might have to rename you Lucy, or something because you alone have changed and you lost your original identity. The essences were divided from the start.

Like I said earlier, an essence derived from a transcendent, shared, immutable Form seems problematic as it implies the copies are less than, in some sense. But this is not the idea I'm expressing because ousia is fundamental to who and what you are. It's similar to platonic thought because the ousia transcends distinction between persons (it is shared). It does not transcend the individual because it is not a platonic Form in a world of forms -- it is the ousia of the individual.

We agree that asserting Christian monotheism is mandatory. Islam believes in one God / Allah who is absolutely transcendent. He communicates with human beings only indirectly through a created angel (Gabriel) and a written word (Quran). They believe that God has 99 names / characters / attributes. The most famous of these characters is that "God is Great" which they declare all the time.

The one character of God that was not mentioned in the Quran is his most essential character, namely that God is Love. Their God could not be loving because He is only transcendent. According to Brother Rachid's definition, he is basically dead. In Christianity, God is Love because He is imminent among people. He communicates with us through his Word, Jesus Christ, and his Holy Spirit.

I think this way of explaining Christian monotheism can be understandable to a Muslim? In the debate videos you heard were there any points that that model would not answer or questions that it would raise?

I don't think it's a bad message, you can try it, but I don't think it will get them past the divinity of Jesus, the Spirit, or allow them to accept trinitarianism.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Firstly, I need to clarify that I did not claim that the essence transcends the Persons -- I made a point to clarify that earlier, that there is no distinction between God and the Persons, individually, so that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God. I meant to say only that God transcends the distinction between Persons.

Ok, so now we're getting in pretty deep here. We have to decide what framework to use when interpreting the relationship between essence and entity. While I have some platonic leanings, I'm not fully platonic, and can side with Aristotle, partly, on the form of a thing being of the thing itself, rather than an ideal, immutable Form transcending the thing itself, which has some unfortunate implications for trinitarianism IMO, because in platonism, the thing itself is somehow *less than* the immutable, ideal Form that is shared among all the things. Platonism isn't the basis of this idea concerning homoousianism -- it's only comparable.

In the Aristotlean sense, you have your own essence, without which, you would cease to be what you are -- you would at the least lose your identity if your essence were altered. Now presume there are additional, exact copies of yourself in existence: we could almost say you all share the same essence as we can't discern a difference between you or your copies. But, assuming there is no world of forms here, no ideal Form that transcends you all, if your essence were changed, your copies would remain the same, though we might have to rename you Lucy, or something because you alone have changed and you lost your original identity. The essences were divided from the start.

Like I said earlier, an essence derived from a transcendent, shared, immutable Form seems problematic as it implies the copies are less than, in some sense. But this is not the idea I'm expressing because ousia is fundamental to who and what you are. It's similar to platonic thought because the ousia transcends distinction between persons (it is shared). It does not transcend the individual because it is not a platonic Form in a world of forms -- it is the ousia of the individual.
I don't think it's a bad message, you can try it, but I don't think it will get them past the divinity of Jesus, the Spirit, or allow them to accept trinitarianism.
And I'm still wondering why we are trying to accommodate the Trinity to anything other than Scripture, why it doesn't get to stand exactly as the NT presents it, three separate divine agents with the characteristics of persons (thinking, speaking, acing).
 
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Fair enough. . .

But on what Scriptural basis do we assume otherwise?

We make no other spiritual assumptions without a Biblical basis.
So if it is not to be based simply on human assumption, how should those Scriptures be stated to mean separate persons to you?

If scripture did not make claims about Jesus being unified with God, the Father, etc, we wouldn't have any scriptural reason to assume He was not a person separated from God.
 
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

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,309
-
✟678,702.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
For me, interpreting the singular Being of God as transcending Persons, fixes all of the problems.

the Being that God is transcends distinction between persons,

the one Ousia that is God transcends distinction between the Persons,

I am saying the Ousia transcends the distinction between Persons only.

God transcends distinction between the Persons.

I find that the concept of Being (Ousia) transcending the distinction between coequal, coeternal Persons

I need to clarify that I did not claim that the essence transcends the Persons

I meant to say only that God transcends the distinction between Persons.
I think you previously claimed that the essence transcends the persons. Now you say that God transcends the distinction between hypostases. I guess the question is what do you mean by God? Do you mean the concept / nature of God or the reality / hypostasis of God?

While I have some platonic leanings, I'm not fully platonic, and can side with Aristotle, partly, on the form of a thing being of the thing itself, rather than an ideal, immutable Form transcending the thing itself, which has some unfortunate implications for trinitarianism IMO, because in platonism, the thing itself is somehow *less than* the immutable, ideal Form that is shared among all the things. Platonism isn't the basis of this idea concerning homoousianism -- it's only comparable.
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

I don't think Plato's "forms" is what is meant here. Does God has one form? Or 3 forms? Or is the Logos "the form" of God?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I think you previously claimed that the essence transcends the persons. Now you say that God transcends the distinction between hypostases. I guess the question is what do you mean by God? Do you mean the concept / nature of God or the reality / hypostasis of God?

It's because, between me and others here, it's ambiguous. In one sense, ousia that does not "transcend three persons" can be taken to mean three ousias, which do not "lie beyond the scope of" three persons -- that is, three individual scopes. A singular, shared ousia is not limited to any one of these scopes. It does, in some sense, transcend the scope of each individual.

But inherent in the meaning of ousia, is that the ousia does not transcend, as in "exist wholly outside the scope of" the individual. Jesus cannot rightly claim to be God, or even Jesus, if either God or that which defines Jesus are wholly beyond Him. None of us would exist without our ousia.

Yet this is exactly what homoousion means -- "same in being".

So, rather than using logic to exclude meanings which I did not intend to imply and are naturally excluded by the language I was using, someone is attempting to exploit the ambiguity inherent in part of my message to attempt to trip me up using word games to catch me in a contradiction which doesn't exist, instead of having a genuine conversation. That's called being disingenuous.

I clarified as needed and where I felt it was necessary. I wasn't being disingenuous.

Edit:

Ambiguity exists. Usually, if one is fortunate enough to be cognizant of it, they employ additional language to constrain ambiguity. That does not constitute a contradiction, even when ambiguity and the constraint are exploited to fabricate an apparent contradiction.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If scripture did not make claims about Jesus being unified with God, the Father, etc, we wouldn't have any scriptural reason to assume He was not a person separated from God.
Thanks. . .while not specifically answering my question, that is helpful.

However, it still remains that I am Biblically "unified" with my husband in the two-in-one enfleshment of marriage, the church is "unified" with Christ in the two-in-one enfleshment of marriage (Ephesians 5:30-31), but I am also separate from my husband and the church is also separate from Christ.

Are you using a Biblical understanding of "unified" regarding the separate persons of the Trinity?
 
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Thanks. . .while not specifically answering my question, that is helpful.

However, it still remains that I am Biblically "unified" with my husband in the two-in-one enfleshment of marriage, the church is "unified" with Christ in the two-in-one enfleshment of marriage (Ephesians 5:30-31), but I am also separate from my husband and the church is also separate from Christ.

Are you using a Biblical understanding of "unified" regarding the separate persons of the Trinity?

I don't think marriage is intended to be used as a metaphor to that degree, even if it is used in scripture, in one place.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't think marriage is intended to be used as a metaphor to that degree,
But the two-in-one enfleshment of marriage is not a metaphor, it is presented as spiritual fact,
just as "Christ is in me" (Colossians 1:27) as union of my spirit with Christ's spirit is presented as spiritual fact, not as metaphor. But my spirit is still separate from Christ's spirit. Spiritual union does not negate separateness, even in the Trinity.

I see the material/physical order as modeled on the spiritual order. . .so that we can understand the spiritual from the physical.
In that case, the separateness of our spirits, in the union of our spirit with Christ's spirit, is modeled on that very separateness of the spirit persons in the Trinity. . .further evidence of the fact of the matter.
even if it is used in scripture,
Don't go south on me now in your belief of the word of God written.

Friendly reminder: don't let attachment to your personal theory diminish or over-ride the Scriptures.
Give the import of the Scriptures time to settle in.

in one place.
So how many times must the word of God say it before it is true?
Is once not enough? Are the following enough?

I am my husband's own body (Ephesians 5:28)--two-in-one flesh (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5;
1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31),
the church is Christ's own body (1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 1:22-23, Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:24), two-in-one flesh (Ephesians 5:31).

I don't know how this can be denied or minimized in light of the plain language of the NT.

The Biblical meaning of "united, union" does not negate the separateness of persons in the Trinity, as presented in the NT (post #40).

Do we really need to accommodate the Trinity to anything other than Scripture?
Should not all things created be accommodated to the Trinity instead?
 
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

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
But the two-in-one enfleshment of marriage is not a metaphor, it is presented as spiritual fact,
just as "Christ is in me" (Colossians 1:27) as union of my spirit with Christ's spirit is presented as spiritual fact, not as metaphor. But my spirit is still separate from Christ's spirit. Spiritual union does not negate separateness, even in the Trinity.

I see the material/physical order as modeled on the spiritual order. . .so that we can understand the spiritual from the physical.
In that case, the separateness of our spirits, in the union of our spirit with Christ's spirit, is modeled on that very separateness of the spirit persons in the Trinity. . .further evidence of the fact of the matter.
Don't go south on me now in your belief of the word of God written.

Friendly reminder: don't let attachment to your personal theory diminish or over-ride the Scriptures.
Give the import of the Scriptures time to settle in.


So how many times must the word of God say it before it is true?
Is once not enough? Are the following enough?

I am my husband's own body (Ephesians 5:28)--two-in-one flesh (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5;
1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31),
the church is Christ's own body (1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 1:22-23, Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:24), two-in-one flesh (Ephesians 5:31).

I don't know how this can be denied or minimized in light of the plain language of the NT.

The Biblical meaning of "united, union" does not negate the separateness of persons in the Trinity, as presented in the NT (post #40).

Do we really need to accommodate the Trinity to anything other than Scripture?
Should not all things created be accommodated to the Trinity instead?

In Revelation, the bride of Christ descends from heaven, so I'm just not convinced of the logic there.

Besides that, I knew a guy who took this way too far, to the extent of over emphasizing the wife-ness, the bride-ness of men.

You ladies can be the bride of Christ all you want to but keep that stuff away from me.

Though I do think there is a unity implied among believers especially in Pauline doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In Revelation, the bride of Christ descends from heaven, so I'm just not convinced of the logic there.
How does that affect the union of Christ and the believer?

Revelation is figurative prophecy. The bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-14)
coming down from heaven.
Surely you don't think the bride of Christ is bricks and mortar.
Besides that, I knew a guy who took this way too far, to the extent of over emphasizing the wife-ness, the bride-ness of men.
How does that affect the union of Christ and the believer?
You ladies can be the bride of Christ all you want to but keep that stuff away from me.
So Scripture is not your authority for faith, doctrine and practice?

Then why bother about how your understanding of the Trinity agrees with the Creeds, which are just restatements of Scripture?
You can make the Trinity anything you want it to be if the NT is not your authority.
Though I do think there is a unity implied among believers especially in Pauline doctrine.
However, in Pauline doctrine the unity of the two-in-one enfleshment of Christ and the Church, and of husband and wife (Ephesians 5:30-31) is more than just implied, it is emphasized.
They are union and they are separate.

I'm disappointed that Scripture is not your authority for faith, doctrine and practice. . .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jesus is YHWH
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I think you previously claimed that the essence transcends the persons. Now you say that God transcends the distinction between hypostases. I guess the question is what do you mean by God? Do you mean the concept / nature of God or the reality / hypostasis of God?

I had to think about this a little bit today.

Ultimately this is going to defy most logic, because we're approaching a subject that does very much go beyond the created order. Words are going to fail, and this is the reason for using the icon which I referenced earlier. If, in like manner, for the sake of argument, we consider this image to be a one-to-one representation of all the pertinent details of the Trinity, there are at least a few things that can be established:
  • If the one God does not transcend (for lack of a better word) Persons, in such a way so as to transcend their distinction, then we cannot say these three are the one God. Perhaps one of the three can speak as and identify as God, but not the others.
  • If the one God does transcend the Persons themselves, in such a way that the ousia of each of the individuals is not God, then none of the Persons can identify as God, much less speak as God.
  • To say the individuals are homoousion, and that the Ousia they share is God, is to say that God transcends the Persons, in such a way so as to transcend their distinction, while maintaining that each of their identities is the one God, while not confusing the Persons themselves.
  • Therefore, if "Ousia" derives from "I AM", the one God is the "I AM", Jesus as God the Son truthfully identified Himself as the "I AM", and the Son is homoousion with the Father and Spirit, then all three are the "I AM," individually and collectively, such that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.

I don't think Plato's "forms" is what is meant here. Does God has one form? Or 3 forms? Or is the Logos "the form" of God?

I don't think so either, although, sometimes I find it useful to think of the Son as the Form of mankind, from which humanity fell. It doesn't lead me to wonder if Platonism is the basis for the Hebrew religion, but I do wonder if the truth of the Hebrew religion could be the basis for Platonism.
 
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