Any Christian philosophers in the group? Question about Trinity explanation -

[tdidymas]

TD,
On Whitfield, I get what you're saying. It depends on the definition used regarding faith as to whether it is anti-intellectual. If they mean faith without reason, or blind faith, then it is anti-intellectual. But, if it means the faith of Scripture, which is faith based on evidence (not necessarily philosophical, but a variety of evidences given to us by God including but not limited to Scripture), then it is far from anti-intellectual.

I disagree with your point on anti-intellectualism, but it brings up a good point for me. I have read nothing I saw as credible in contrasting people like Moreland's or Peacey's works on reentering the battlefield of ideas by becoming more intellectually engaged with our faith to help others see the Truth. Your comment simply triggered in my mind that there might be viable arguments against becoming more intellectually engaged with our faith. Anti-intellectualism as a term was not brought up against those who reject engaging in philosophical study regarding their faith. Far from it. It focuses on those whose only reason for the hope that is within them is to say "I know because I know it in my knower." When people simply say it's true because I think it's true - or it's true just because it's true - you don't convince anyone. That's why Peter called us to always have a reason or defense, why Paul told us to test all things and why Jesus told us the greatest commandment is, in part, to love the Lord your God with all your mind. When people reject using their God-given, Fall-damaged reason, we get to where we've let ourselves get to over the last 50 to 75 years. A church that fails to get salt into the culture. A church that abdicates the field of argument to the culture.

As for God's attributes, perfection cannot stand alone. Perfection has to be viewed in light of something else. Even if we say (and rightly so) God IS perfect, your talking about His Being. His Being is perfect. His attributes of holiness, righteousness, all-knowingness, lovingkindness, etc are all attributes that could (but do not) exist in Him as something less than perfect. For instance, God's lovingkindness could be a part of God's image in us, but it is not perfect in us. It might be perfectly installed in us as God desires, but it is not perfect lovingkindness because our version of lovingkindness is far from God's expression of it. There is an ideal state or expression of an attribute where it can be called perfect. But, that perfection cannot exist on its own. You have to have something tangible or tangibly expressed to be able to describe it as flawed or perfect.

So, yes, it is a descriptor but it is a contingent descriptor. It relies on something else to be useful and cannot exist on its own aside from the item it describes. Perfection cannot stand on its own.

God exhibits lovingkindness.
What kind of lovingkindness?
God exhibits perfect lovingkindness.

God exhibits perfection. (doesn't work)
What kind of perfection? (doesn't work)
In what does God exhibit perfection?
God exhibits perfection in His lovingkindness.

The way you are describing perfection as talking about God's Being, is the same as a description of any of His attributes. All of His attributes are a description of His being, and none of God's attributes stand alone. Think about it. God cannot be all-powerful unless He is all-knowing, and He cannot be all-knowing unless He is all-present. He cannot be just, merciful, wrathful, loving, and true always unless He is perfect in it all. So then, as one could say "God is love," so one could say "God is just," "God is truth", "God is light," "God is perfect," etc. God is all His attributes simultaneously all the time. They cannot be divided from each other.

Although there seems a paradox: how can God be loving to those people who are cast in the lake of fire? But since God transcends the universe, space, and time, God is loving as well as wrathful, and merciful as well as just. He exercises His justice on those who deserve it, and at the same time is being as merciful and loving to them as perfect justice requires. God says "I will have mercy on whom I will..." but this does not divide mercy from justice. They are still working together perfectly.

So then, all God's attributes (perfection, holiness, love, justice, etc.) are His being expressed in varying degrees. Although it does not appear that God is omnipresent in most places, He is nonetheless. Although it does not appear that God is omnipotent in most places, He is nonetheless. Although it does not appear that God is loving toward many people, He is nonetheless. Etc. for holy, righteous, and all other attributes anyone can think of, including perfection. God is perfect in all things, though it may appear that He isn't - e.g. was He perfect in His preservation of the scriptures? If God is perfect and omnipresent, then how is there evil in the world? If God dwells in believers, how can they be imperfect, etc.
TD

 

[Bible2+]

Wordkeeper said in post 36:

I even considered a career in indoctrinating others.

Do you use "indoctrinating" as a way to malign only Reformed doctrine, or any teaching of doctrine?

If the latter, note that Jesus made a positive reference to God's doctrine (John 7:16-17). For that is what Jesus' teachings are: doctrine (Mark 1:22, Luke 4:32). And we are to continue in his and his apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42, Acts 13:12, Romans 6:17, Romans 16:17; 1 Timothy 4:6,13; 2 Timothy 3:10, Titus 2:1,7,10). Indeed, all scripture is profitable for doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16). And whoever transgresses and abides not in the doctrine of Christ has not God, but he who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both God the Father and God the Son (2 John 1:9).

So Christian faith mustn't be based (as is sometimes implied) solely on heart feelings, which can be very deceptive (Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 28:26, Proverbs 14:12), but must be also a rational/intellectual enterprise. For saving faith requires mental assent (Philippians 3:15-16, Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25, Romans 8:6) to correct (i.e. Biblical) doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 John 1:9-10; 1 Timothy 6:3, Titus 1:9) and continuing to remember that doctrine (1 Corinthians 15:2; 2 Peter 3:1-2; 2 Corinthians 11:3).

For example, in order for people to be saved, they must believe (and continue to believe to the end: Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Colossians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:2) the correct doctrine that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 20:31, John 3:36, 1 John 2:23), and that he suffered and died on the Cross for our sins, and physically resurrected from the dead on the 3rd day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

 

[hedrick]

There has always been a range of views on the Trinity. The major standards such as Nicea were always compromises, intended to allow moderate versions of the major approaches. For that reason I think we need to be careful about accusing other Christians of modalism or tritheism. There are different approaches to understanding the Trinity.

To me the heresy of modalism is that the distinction is just three ways in which God acts in the world, so it speaks of how God appears to us, but it doesn’t speak about God as he is.

I think the reason the Trinity matters is because Jesus shows us God. If we take that seriously, it changes how we think about God. Without the Incarnation, God would be purely “out there,” a law-giver who creates us and rules us, but never has the same kind of experience we do. If Jesus show us God, then this implies that God isn’t just the law-giver but the obedient servant. I’m not sure how far it’s worth going beyond that to put the doctrine in theoretical terms such as persons and substance. Scripture uses different ways of talking about it, and doesn't try for a single metaphysical formulation.

 

[mikeforjesus]

Jesus said he who has seen Me has seen the Father not an image of the Father though He is the express image of God and therefore the Father as they are one. The Father is like the root of the tree and the Son is what you can see of the tree which reveals the root's image or gives the tree its appearance. Jesus said I am the true vine. My father is the vinedresser.

source
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/the_Meaning_of_the_Holy_Trinity_fr_abraam_sleman.pdf

Anyway the Angel Gabriel said He was called the Son of God because He was born of the Holy Spirit. His taking a human nature is considered a birth. And it was a divine birth. Because He took human flesh He made Himself dependent on His Father. After He died He returned to the Father and so does not pray to Him as though 2 anymore but 1 because nothing is hidden from Him but He may still exist as though 2. The Father has granted Him to have life in Himself because He comes from the root. He depends still on the Father as with the root and the image of the tree but not as on earth where He has to fully submit His human will to be one with the divine will which He was always one with before coming to earth.

But He becomes fully united to the Father without restrictions. This explains why it is said Not even the Son knows the day and hour of the end of the world. Yet He clearly taught there is one God and that it is He. How can He not know except that He chooses not to know. Such knowledge is not fitting for a man to know and He took on our nature. If He knew such things maybe it would be a sin of idle curiosity or some other reason.


Phillipians 2:5-9
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.