how do adventists view of the trinity?

[Hoghead1]

Kind-nature = A common universal e.g. horseness, humanity. Sometimes also known as secondary substance although there is extra baggage there.


Palamas talked about a lot of things besides the essence/energies distinction. I was bringing him up in relation to the form/matter analogy.

Yes, but he did talk about essence/energies, whereas you appear to be going in a whole other direction. Also, I gather you are talking about substance metaphysics. Yes, that was fundamental in the Trinitarian formulas. However, substance metaphysics is Hellenic in nature, not at all biblical.

 

[reddogs]

It seems you only accept one category of nature, that is, kind-nature. The Fathers were somewhat familiar with Aristotle and thus were familiar with particular nature as well. Since that seems to matter to you, check it out.

The three Persons do not share a kind-nature, i.e. Fatherness. Rather they have the same particular nature of being God as the Father has it.

3 persons =numerically one God
3 persons =not identical to one another.


As for questions, they are your burden.

No, they believed the pagan Greek Philosophers were teaching God truth rather than mans ideas and expanded and developed their views from them rather than scripture..

 

[Dave-W]

they believed the pagan Greek Philosophers were teaching God truth

Does anyone see a problem with this?

 

[Cappadocious]

Yes, but he did talk about essence/energies, whereas you appear to be going in a whole other direction.

So:

1. St. Gregory Palamas talked, among other things, about the essence energies distinction.
2. Cappadocious isn't talking about that distinction.
3. :. ???

You lost me on premise 3.

In any case you have, once again, failed to prove 3 gods. What is the demonstration for this?

 

[Hoghead1]

So:

1. St. Gregory Palamas talked, among other things, about the essence energies distinction.
2. Cappadocious isn't talking about that distinction.
3. :. ???

You lost me on premise 3.

In any case you have, once again, failed to prove 3 gods. What is the demonstration for this?

I thought I already made that clear. What I said was that if you posit three separate, distinct personalities, all sharing the same nature, divinity or Deity, then you have posited three Gods. For example, three men have in common human nature, but are still three men. That was a point also recognized by Gregory of Nyssa, who then argued the three are one because they enjoy a perfect harmony, unlike any three men. But still, three personalities working in harmony are three s personalities. Wotan and Flicka both share divinity, but are still two separate gods, for example.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, they believed the pagan Greek Philosophers were teaching God truth rather than mans ideas and expanded and developed their views from them rather than scripture..

The Bible is not a book of systematic theology or metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. Therefore, the early fathers looked to Hellenic metaphysics. Unlike today, the early fathers had a much more favorable attitude toward "pagan" philosophy. Augustine, for example, said there were many treasures among the pagans that Christians should use.

 

[Hoghead1]

Does anyone see a problem with this?

No, the early fathers certainly did not, as I just explained in a related post.

 

[Cappadocious]

I thought I already made that clear. What I said was that if you posit three separate, distinct personalities, all sharing the same nature, divinity or Deity, then you have posited three Gods. For example, three men have in common human nature, but are still three men. That was a point also recognized by Gregory of Nyssa, who then argued the three are one because they enjoy a perfect harmony, unlike any three men. But still, three personalities working in harmony are three s personalities. Wotan and Flicka both share divinity, but are still two separate gods, for example.

And as I said, I am not referring to a secondary kind-nature like humanity or deity, but to a single, particular primary nature. There is numerically-one God. Furthermore I have not made use of the term "Personalities," nor is such a term relevant. Furthermore the three persons are distinct but not separate. There is no principle by which difference entails division.

So as in the previous thread, you have not given a demonstration for three gods.

 

[Hoghead1]

And as I said, I am not referring to a secondary kind-nature like humanity or deity, but to a single, particular primary nature. There is numerically-one God. Furthermore I have not made use of the term "Personalities," nor is such a term relevant. Furthermore the three persons are distinct but not separate. There is no principle by which difference entails division.

So as in the previous thread, you have not given a demonstration for three gods.

So, as in previous posts, you have misunderstood my point. In addition, yes, separate does mean distinct. The idea behind the Nicene Creed, for example, is that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Spirit is not the Son or Father. Yes, they are separate and distinct. Also, kind-nature and primary nature appear to be terms unique to yourself and I am not clear how you differentiate them.

 

[Dave-W]

No, the early fathers certainly did not, as I just explained in a related post.

The ECFs were trying to distance themselves from Judaism in any way they could to avoid the Roman persecution in the wake of the failed Bar Kochba revolt.

So rather than taking what God revealed about Himself in the OT, they opted for a pagan and perverted image.

BIG problem IMO.

 

[Cappadocious]

In addition, yes, separate does mean distinct.

Separate entails distinct, but distinct does not entail separate.

The idea behind the Nicene Creed, for example, is that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Spirit is not the Son or Father.

That's more the point of the pseudo-Athanasian Creed, don't you think? In any case, this is distinction but does not necesarily entail separation.

Also, kind-nature and primary nature appear to be terms unique to yourself and I am not clear how you differentiate them.

I am adapting Aristotle's primary/secondary distinction to your mode of discourse, since you like using the awful term "nature". As for kind-nature, it is a known term.

But in order to clarify, consider the following distinctions:

Primary = what it is to be a particular thing, like this horse.
Secondary = what it is to be a kind of thing, like horseness.

Do you see the distinction?

 

[Hoghead1]

Separate entails distinct, but distinct does not entail separate.


That's more the point of the pseudo-Athanasian Creed, don't you think? In any case, this is distinction but does not necesarily entail separation.


I am adapting Aristotle's primary/secondary distinction to your mode of discourse, since you like using the awful term "nature". As for kind-nature, it is a known term.

But in order to clarify, consider the following distinctions:

Primary = what it is to be a particular thing, like this horse.
Secondary = what it is to be a kind of thing, like horseness.

Do you see the distinction?

Yes, distinct does entail some real degree of separateness. As I just told you, the Nicene Creed and also later Trinitarian formulations assume the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father. Hence, it was considered heresy to even suggest the Father suffered. That is the Son's role. OK, now I follow you on kind-nature. As I aid before, the church fathers went on substance metaphysics, which is why I suspect their Trinitarian formulations often ended up in confusion and chaos. First, God is introduced as a simple, immutable, nonrelational being, a monad. Then the father tried to introduce the highly complex and relational machinery into this monad. The result was contradiction.

 

[Dave-W]

I am adapting Aristotle's primary/secondary distinction to your mode of discourse, since you like using the awful term "nature". As for kind-nature, it is a known term.
But in order to clarify, consider the following distinctions:
Primary = what it is to be a particular thing, like this horse.
Secondary = what it is to be a kind of thing, like horseness.
Do you see the distinction?

Yes we see the distinction. That said, it follows the unbiblical model of breaking things down and apart to look at them separately; rather than seeing them built together in relationship. (the biblical model)

 

[Dave-W]

Hence, it was considered heresy to even suggest the Father suffered. That is the Son's role.

Really? If I, as a father, have to stand by and watch one of my daughters or my son get slaughtered, you think I do not suffer?

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes we see the distinction. That said, it follows the unbiblical model of breaking things down and apart to look at them separately; rather than seeing them built together in relationship. (the biblical model)

there is no such biblical model. Where did you get that idea? I know many go on the old cliché that "analysis is paralysis." But it is still very necessary to our understanding. We murder to dissect, and the murderer has a solid defense plea. We simply have to realize that our knowledge is limited.

 

[Hoghead1]

Really? If I, as a father, have to stand by and watch one of my daughters or my son get slaughtered, you think I do not suffer?

Yes, true. However, there is more to the story. The Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. it provides snap shots that often conflict. It's up to the reader to pout them together into a meaningful whole. So, the early fathers looked heavily to Hellenic metaphysics. They were deeply influenced my major schools which stressed that the world of time, change, and matter is a big illusion, evil. The truly divine, the "really real," is a transcendental world of the wholly simple, immaterial, and immutable. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. This, in turn, led to what is called classical theism, the classical Christian definition of God as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. God could not have emotions, as emotions denote changes in bodily states, and God has no body and God does not change (Aquinas). St. Anselm argued that since God is passionless, God also is without any compassion. Also, God is the most superior of all beings. Not to suffer is better than to suffer. So God cannot suffer. Again, Aquinas argue that God is an actus purus, a statically complete perfection. Therefore, God can experience no negative emotion, as that would mean God could improve and change. I could cite plenty of other examples the m from the major fathers and creeds and confessions. For example, it is axiomatic in Christology that Christ considered of two separate natures, one human, the other divine, the God part. Only the human suffered, definitely not the divine, a s the truly divine is defined as impassible, meaning incapable of emotion, most especially suffering. Check our the Second Helvetic Confession here. So, yes, in traditional Christianity, it was a heresy to suggest God suffered. In recent years, since the end of WW@, many theologians have seriously challenged the classical view, arguing it presents but a wholly unloving and insensitive God. Hence, there is now a major movement called neo-classical theism, which is where I, as a theologian, stand.

 

[reddogs]

The Bible is not a book of systematic theology or metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. Therefore, the early fathers looked to Hellenic metaphysics. Unlike today, the early fathers had a much more favorable attitude toward "pagan" philosophy. Augustine, for example, said there were many treasures among the pagans that Christians should use.

They followed paganism as the Roman Catholic church had already brought in the pagan rites, mysteries and traditions, so not only was the church paganized but the beliefs as well

 

[reddogs]

I agree with your assessment of the site but at least they are proclaiming the 2nd and 3rd angels messages... we used to fellowship online with Nic and family years ago...

They have what I can only call a 'unique' view of Adventism that doesn't allow for much discussion or fellowship...

 

[Hoghead1]

They followed paganism as the Roman Catholic church had already brought in the pagan rites, mysteries and traditions, so not only was the church paganized but the beliefs as well

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.

 

[Dave-W]

It's up to the reader to put them together into a meaningful whole.

OR - we were not meant to delve into that "whole." We understand in an attempt to control and predict. We are NOT to control or predict God beyond what is revealed to us in scripture.

So, the early fathers looked heavily to Hellenic metaphysics. They were deeply influenced my major schools which stressed that the world of time, change, and matter is a big illusion, evil. The truly divine, the "really real," is a transcendental world of the wholly simple, immaterial, and immutable.

Right. Try to take biblical theology from Greek paganism. How dumb is that?

The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. This, in turn, led to what is called classical theism, the classical Christian definition of God as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. God could not have emotions, as emotions denote changes in bodily states, and God has no body and God does not change (Aquinas).

But that flies in the face of innumerable scriptures from both testaments that clearly show God has emotions. So that is clearly anti biblical.

St. Anselm argued that since God is passionless, God also is without any compassion.

Again, anti biblical.

Also, God is the most superior of all beings. Not to suffer is better than to suffer. So God cannot suffer. Again, Aquinas argue that God is an actus purus, a statically complete perfection. Therefore, God can experience no negative emotion, as that would mean God could improve and change.

A false understanding of perfection.

So, yes, in traditional Christianity, it was a heresy to suggest God suffered. In recent years, since the end of WW@, many theologians have seriously challenged the classical view, arguing it presents but a wholly unloving and insensitive God. Hence, there is now a major movement called neo-classical theism, which is where I, as a theologian, stand.

That is so opposed to 2nd temple period (and prior) Judaic understanding as to be cringe worthy.