how do adventists view of the trinity?

[Hoghead1]

Non-identity, i.e. distinctness, does not entail separation.


You have provided no demonstration for this. On the other hand, with my form/matter example (not an analogy, but an example) I have shown this entailment to be false.


You haven't heard of the primary/secondary distinction in the context of substance metaphysics? Perhaps that is because:


You are trying to read early modern substance metaphysics (Descartes, Spinoza et al) back onto the Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian Fathers.

No, I am not doing that at all. Your analogy doesn't work. Your understanding of the Nicene Creed is way, way off. Your understanding of substance metaphysics is also way, way off.

 

[Cappadocious]

No, I am not doing that at all. Your analogy doesn't work. Your understanding of the Nicene Creed is way, way off. Your understanding of substance metaphysics is also way, way off.

I am not using form/matter as an analogy. I am using it as a counter-example. You made an entailment claim and I have refuted that entailment by providing a counter-example. All you need is one counter example to break the entailment.

As for substance metaphysics, you are clearly not familiar with Aristotle. One of the downsides of getting your philosophy from a seminary, evidently. At least of the non-Jesuit sort. In any case, even though my distinction has precedent in Aristotle, it needs no precedent to refute your claims of Trinitarian inconsistency within substance metaphysics.

 

[Hoghead1]

I am not using form/matter as an analogy. I am using it as a counter-example. You made an entailment claim and I have refuted that entailment by providing a counter-example. All you need is one counter example to break the entailment.

As for substance metaphysics, you are clearly not familiar with Aristotle. One of the downsides of getting your philosophy from a seminary, evidently. At least of the non-Jesuit sort. In any case, even though my distinction has precedent in Aristotle, it needs no precedent to refute your claims of Trinitarian inconsistency within substance metaphysics.

Oh, baloney. Don't give me this line about the downside of my education. If anyone has a downside to their education, it is you and your overly smug attitude.

 

[Dave-W]

However, I am curious just what your case is.

My case is that Plato, Aristotle, et al, were all idol worshipers. (zeus, hera, apollo, diana, et al) That invalidates anything they have to say concerning theology and biblical world view. Their views were very different from the Jewish sages that at least knew the right scriptures and worshiped the right God.

 

[Cappadocious]

Oh, baloney. Don't give me this line about the downside of my education. If anyone has a downside to their education, it is you and your overly smug attitude.

Am I smug? Yep.

But Homie, I'm not the one waving my degree around and process-splaining down to the entire forum. If my smugness can slow your roll and keep people from getting dissed and confused, at least it's being put to good use.

 

[Hoghead1]

My case is that Plato, Aristotle, et al, were all idol worshipers. (zeus, hera, apollo, diana, et al) That invalidates anything they have to say concerning theology and biblical world view. Their views were very different from the Jewish sages that at least knew the right scriptures and worshiped the right God.

That is not the issue, however. Augustine and other of the early fathers felt that there were still treasures to be had among the "pagans" and that these should be used. They wisely did not share your stigma here.

 

[Hoghead1]

Am I smug? Yep.

But Homie, I'm not the one waving my degree around and process-splaining down to the entire forum. If my smugness can slow your roll and keep people from getting dissed and confused, at least it's being put to good use.

Look, you are flaming here and that's against the rules.

 

[Cappadocious]

Look, you are flaming here and that's against the rules.

The rules here are of no real import. But in any case, stand aright. If all personal criticism is flaming, then just ban personal criticism and have a stasi forum. But don't expect to read anything worthwhile.

 

[Hoghead1]

The rules here are of no real import. But in any case, stand aright. If all personal criticism is flaming, then just ban personal criticism and have a stasi forum. But don't expect to read anything worthwhile.

The kind of remarks you were making to me were simply inappropriate personal attacks. That is against the rules here.

 

[Cappadocious]

The kind of remarks you were making to me were simply inappropriate personal attacks. That is against the rules here.

What is the demonstration for the criticisms being inappropriate? You attempted to abuse members in a certain way and I don't want you to do so, hence I'm stepping in. So you're trying to cite me for calling you an abuser? Well, I suppose you could, but really it's you who should be under ban for the way you've treated members here.

And if calling people out for evil is inappropriate, then the rules are inappropriate. It would be an honor to be banned for calling out what you've tried to do here.

 

[Hoghead1]

What is the demonstration for the criticisms being inappropriate? You attempted to abuse members in a certain way and I don't want you to do so, hence I'm stepping in. So you're trying to cite me for calling you an abuser? Well, I suppose you could, but really it's you who should be under ban for the way you've treated members here.

And if calling people out for evil is inappropriate, then the rules are inappropriate. It would be an honor to be banned for calling out what you've tried to do here.

More flamming. Just as I suspected.

 

[Cappadocious]

More flamming. Just as I suspected.

It's "flaming."

 

[Hoghead1]

It's "flaming."

Correct.

 

[Dave-W]

That is not the issue, however. Augustine and other of the early fathers felt that there were still treasures to be had among the "pagans" and that these should be used.

And they were dead wrong. I would think that the SDA congregants would understand that.

 

[Hoghead1]

And they were dead wrong. I would think that the SDA congregants would understand that.

Your comment does not fit the historical facts of the matter, however. The Bible is not a book of systematic theology of metaphysics. it tells us very little about how God is built. It gives but snap shots which often conflict, It is left to the reader to put these together into a unified whole. Hence, the fathers were justified in looking to help from Hellenic metaphysics. In point of fact, Hellenic substance metaphysics underlies most models of the Trinity. Also, the traditional or classical Christian model of God as he is in his own nature comes from Hellenic philosophy. If, for example, you hold God is wholly immutable, and many Christians do, then you are going on Hellenic metaphysics, not Scripture. If you take a look at church architecture, you will find it was all based on Greco-Roman principles. So no, the fathers weren't wrong incorporating "treasures" from the "pagan" Greco-Roman world, many of which are taken for granted by Christians even today.

 

[Dave-W]

The Bible is not a book of systematic theology of metaphysics.

I totally agree.

it tells us very little about how God is built. It gives but snap shots which often conflict,

Why do we even want to know "how God is built?" Are we trying to build another one?

As to conflicting information, Hebraic logic can handle such contradictions.

Hence, the fathers were justified in looking to help from Hellenic metaphysics.

Justified? Not hardly. There can be no biblical justification in going to a pagan religion for understanding of the God the bible. If He chose to not reveal Himself in some area there, it was intentional. One of the lessons of Eden and the fall is mankind should not go to foreign sources for knowledge.

Hellenic substance metaphysics underlies most models of the Trinity.

I know. And it flies in the face of proper commanded evangelism. The gospel is to go to Jerusalem and Judea first (Acts 1, Romans 1) which means it has to be relatable to Jews. As gentile believers, we are called (every one of us) to make the Jews jealous for OUR relationship to THEIR God. (Rom 11.11) Throwing in Hellenic metaphysics turns it into something abhorrent to even modern Jews, let alone Jews of the first few centuries. It is an impediment to the gospel of the early church fathers' making. How can we make them jealous if what we have looks disgusting to them?

So no, the fathers weren't wrong incorporating "treasures" from the "pagan" Greco-Roman world, many of which are taken for granted by Christians even today.

They were ABSOLUTELY wrong. The fact that these things are taken for granted shows how far the church has fallen from its high calling. It highlights the fact that effective Jewish evangelism is completely a non-issue to most modern christians.

 

[Hoghead1]

I totally agree.

Why do we even want to know "how God is built?" Are we trying to build another one?

As to conflicting information, Hebraic logic can handle such contradictions.

Justified? Not hardly. There can be no biblical justification in going to a pagan religion for understanding of the God the bible. If He chose to not reveal Himself in some area there, it was intentional. One of the lessons of Eden and the fall is mankind should not go to foreign sources for knowledge.

I know. And it flies in the face of proper commanded evangelism. The gospel is to go to Jerusalem and Judea first (Acts 1, Romans 1) which means it has to be relatable to Jews. As gentile believers, we are called (every one of us) to make the Jews jealous for OUR relationship to THEIR God. (Rom 11.11) Throwing in Hellenic metaphysics turns it into something abhorrent to even modern Jews, let alone Jews of the first few centuries. It is an impediment to the gospel of the early church fathers' making. How can we make them jealous if what we have looks disgusting to them?

They were ABSOLUTELY wrong. The fact that these things are taken for granted shows how far the church has fallen from its high calling. It highlights the fact that effective Jewish evangelism is completely a non-issue to most modern christians.

We want to know how God is built so that we have a better understanding of God. That should be obvious. And again, no, the early fathers were not wrong. If you would have studied history, you would see that. And no, it was not offensive to ancient or modern Jews. Many ancient Jews were in fact deeply imbued in Hellenic culture. The classical or traditional Judeo-Christian model of God as wholly a wholly immutable, simple, nonrelational being came straight from Hellenic metaphysics.

 

[Dave-W]

We want to know how God is built so that we have a better understanding of God.

Having a "better understanding" usually means figuring a way to control. If God does not reveal something in the scriptures, it is one of those things that "we see in a glass darkly" (1 cor 13.12) that we are not supposed to understand until the end.

The classical or traditional Judeo-Christian model of God as wholly a wholly immutable, simple, nonrelational being came straight from Hellenic metaphysics.

Except typifying God as "nonrelational" goes against what the Bible DOES say about Him. He is a Father, he speaks to us, he loves us and shows compassion, and is said to even keep count of the number of hairs on each of our heads. How is that "nonrelational?"

 

[Hoghead1]

Having a "better understanding" usually means figuring a way to control. If God does not reveal something in the scriptures, it is one of those things that "we see in a glass darkly" (1 cor 13.12) that we are not supposed to understand until the end.

Except typifying God as "nonrelational" goes against what the Bible DOES say about Him. He is a Father, he speaks to us, he loves us and shows compassion, and is said to even keep count of the number of hairs on each of our heads. How is that "nonrelational?"

Yes, the classical or traditional Christian model of God as he is in his own nature does contradict Scripture at many points. That is something many Christians overlook. Classical theism states that God is without body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. In the Bible, however, God is attributed deep emotion and also said to change, in about 100 passages. When the church fathers looked at this anthropomorphic imagery of God in the Bible, they simply concluded we were dealing her with figures of speech, God talking "baby talk" (Calvin's term) to us.
I think of God as a relational being. That means I see God as arising out of God's relationships with the universe, just as we arise out of our relationships with others. God and the universe are mutually interdependent. God grows as the world goes.
Having a better understanding does mean increased control. Question is, Control of what? Well, certainly ourselves. What about God? I believe we all have influence on God, that God takes seriously what we feel and do. God is in a genuine relationship with us, and that means each side has a major influence on the other. If you want to assume that means we can control God up to a point, then so be it. That's the way it is supposed to work. Also, I don't know where you get the idea that if Scripture isn't clear on something that means we have no right to know. That seems like a very good way to use Scripture as an excuse to keep us ignorant and in the dark.

 

[reddogs]

Who is the "they" here? I don't think you quite understand the historical situation. The early fathers had a much different idea about the pagan world than later, deeply biased Christians. As Augustine once stressed, the fathers realized there were great treasures to be found among the pagans and these should be used by Christians. So the early fathers did not have the stigma against paganism that later came to haunt Christianity. Had the early church not incorporated Hellenic metaphysics, it probably would not have survived.

Augustine brought these pagan Greek thought into the church, talk about birds of the same feather...