Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Wgw]

Well, if you feel I'm ignorant about the Roman concept of person, why don't you provide some evidence here to enlightenment me? So far, you have failed to show how this has any relevance to the social theory of the Trinity. And until I see your case about Roman personhood, I'm sticking to my guns.

I don't do chaps research for them, although by way of a hint I might well suggest you look up the legal status of slaves in the Roman Empire.

When Augustine and others here speak of "three men" their account, they mean three egos, three personalities.

"Men," "egos" and to a certain extent, "personalities," are not suitable descriptions for the Trinity. One of the Cappadocians, if memory serves, St. Gregory Nazianzus, refused to even use the word "three," saying that the Trinity was not arithmetic and that counting the prosopa was inappropriate.

If one rejects sacred Scripture and commits various errors of logic? Evidence, please. Without you providing any evidence, all you have done is state your opinion on the matter. Who says you are at all accurate? If you want to be critical of me, fine; but you need to provide solid evidence to back your points.

I have already enumerated the logical errors of your argument. Regarding Scripture, I assume by virtue of your theological training that you ought to know which specific verses support the idea of divine omniscience, omnipotence, and so on; I had assumed that knowing this, you subscribed to your doctrine on the basis of a non-literal interpretation of those verses. If you need me to produce them, I cannot say I am happy to do so; I will do it, but I would be inclined to think less of your intellectual qualifications at that point.

The Cappadocians did not have the modern social theory of the Trinity? C'mon. They argued God is a cosmic society of three personalities. That's the modern social theory to the hilt.

To some extent, the Orthodox doctrine corresponds to the Social Theory, but it is not the Social Theory, particularly not when we consider, for example, the expressions of Ss. Basil and Gregory Nazianzus on the nature of God as a whole.

Calvin is not a church father? Maybe not to the East, but he sure is considered one in the West.

Not by Calvinists or Roman Catholics. The RC doctrine is that St. John of Damascus was the last Patristic figure, whereas the Calvinists regard Calvin as preeminent among the 16th century Reformers.

It wouldn't hurt for you to respect the West a bit more.

It would, actually.

Anyhow, charges of heresy have nothing to do with whether or not one is considered a church father. Luther was declared a heretic and yet he is considered a church father.

Not by Lutherans. We do of course enumerate some Patristic figures who were later anathematized or who died schismatic; Tertullian, Origen, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, for example.

Church father simply major movers and shakers. Anyhow, the reason I introduced Calvin here was to give an example of muddled thinking on the part of at least what we in the West consider a church father. If you don't want to consider him that, he still stands as an example of how church leaders were muddled and highly contradictory.

That some church leaders (that is to say, heresiarchs) were muddled and contradictory is readily admitted by the Orthodox. Indeed, St. Irenaeus of Lyons and St. Epiphanius of Salamis are chiefly remembered for pointing out precisely how muddled various heresiarchs were.

You can only consider the biblical God to be changing if you read literally and anthropomorphically? How else do you want to read Scripture? Quarrel if you must with the anthropomorphic language of Scripture as a mere concession to our intellects, still at a minimum this language means God is affectively sensitive, experiencing affect states analogous to pleasure and displeasure, in ourselves. If the metaphors of Scripture do not fit the actual reality of God, then they reveal nothing about God and should be thrown out.

We can interpret these passages as referring metaphorically to divine love, without contradicting those passages which convey the immutability of God.

That was another problem I have with classical theism. Calvin and others would come along, argue fir a literal reading of Scripture, and then be selective about it, taking as literal passages that speak of God as immutable and then taking as mere figures of speech those speaking of change and emotion in God. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

It's not hypocrisy, in that the wisdom of this approach was historically obvious and universally accepted until Process Theology. If you want to argue that the entire Church got it quite badly wrong for nineteen centuries, why even bother with Christianity?

So, granting validity to those passages that speak of God as changing, and there are about a hundred, then Scripture has presented a complex picture of God as both mutable and immutable, which is the process position as well.

There exists a rather obvious logical fallacy in that remark. Does Process discard the Law of the Excluded Middle?

Only one verse of Scripture claims God doesn't know the future? I cited more than just one. I referred both to Sodom and also Jeremiah 18. And if there were only one verse, how did it manage to get there if the biblical writers all assumed God knows the future?

The reverse argument also applies, and one has to commit to one interpretation or the other, or else risk descending into sophistry.

Calvinists employ torrents of Scripture in support of predestination? Hey, I thought you viewed Calvin as a heretic and therefore unworthy of consideration. Furthermore, I do not agree that the passages Calvinists cite prove predestination. I don't have time to go into more detail here about these passages.

My point is, that even Calvinism with all its flaws can rebut Process on this point successfully is a compelling reason to reject Process.

Process flies in the face of Scripture, ignoring the distinction between the human and divine in Jesus? Where does Scripture say that Christ had two separate, independent natures? Where in Scripture does it say that only the human suffered, that the divine was incapable of suffering? What was Christ, some kind of split personality, one half suffering, the other half laughing up on the Cross? Why can't God suffer anyway? The Arian objection that Christ could not be God was based precisely on that assumption, that God cannot suffer. How does insisting the God part of Christ does not suffer do anything more than reinforce the Arian position?

You need to revise, urgently, regarding the Arian controversy, Apollinarianism, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. Cyril, the Council of Ephesus, Eutyches, the Chalcedonian Schism, the Theopaschite controversy and Oriental Orthodox Christology. As it stands, there are so many problems with your argument, that even Nestorius, who my own Syriac Orthodox church regards as a vile figure, could offer a compelling refutation of your argument. On the other hand, lest you should attempt to reconcile your view with Oriental Orthodx miaphysitism and the Theopaschite Clause, what you describe is dorectly contrary to the Miaphysis formula of St. Cyril; indeed, the Coptic Orthodox liturgy directly contradicts your position.

We shouldn't hold to a theological scheme because I appeals to us. Origin did and he was declared a heretic. The charge of 'heretic" simply says that one does not go along with the teachings of some church, period. That's it. Such a charge says nothing about the validity of the heretics views.

The Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and cirtually everyone else who knows who Origen is regards him as a heretic. The most ancient heretics, who are uncontroversially anathema, were anathematized precisely because their views were invalid; this is especially true in the case of Origen, who was anathematized more than 200 years after he reposed.

Anyhow, why should we not chose a scheme that appeals to us? How else would you chose a scheme?

According to the criteria of the faith once delivered to the Apostles.

If it doesn't meet our needs, wants, and desires, why bother with it? It isn't working. If you are trying to argue that such a scheme might not fit reality, that can be true. However, most would find such an unreal scheme to be totally unsatisfying.

Such an approach as you favour clashes with Galatians 1:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, et cetera.

I never heard of Palamas? True. That's supposed to be some sort of attack on me? Why? Inver said I know everything, did I? Also, if you believe Palamas is important for me to consider, then it's your responsibility to tell me about him.

I was of course referring to Whitehead; in his case one could legitimately argue that a man of his time and place might not be reasonably expected to know of the Palamist controversy. However, for a contemporary theologian, I would argue that a lack of familiarity with the Palamist controversy is inexcusable, particularly if one presumes to debate the Orthodox. It would be alin to my being unfamiliar with Thomas Aquinas.

The process Deity is a "lump of clay"? Oh, c'mon that is way, way off base. As I emphasized before and see fit to bring up here, the process Deity is dipolar. That means mutable in some aspects while immutable and unbendable in others. God is a synthesis of consistency and change. Hence, you cannot just bend the process Deity any way you want. Both sides of any polarity apply to God. As I said if it is a virtue to say full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, and God is definitely of doing that, it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others. Apparently, for some reason, you have trouble with this latter point. Here, I think it important for you to consider the process response to Malachi 3:5-7. "I , the Lord, change not" implies God enjoys a fixity of will and purpose and in that fixity, will not vary. However, rather than denying change, such immutability insists upon change "Return to me that I might return to you" means that if we change in such-and-such a direction, God will likewise change.

The problem is that the bounds between the perceived mutable and immutable "aspects" are arbitrary and subjectove; they can be altered to a large extent to suit various theological schema. This is in contrast to the unambiguous bounds of the hypostatic union, or the essence/energies distinction. What is more, such "aspects" introduce an unscriptural division into parts of the divine essence; the result is an unacceptable internal dualism.

Parallel approaches to process without a biblical warrant? It appears here that you have real issues with liberal Christianity.

I have "real issues" with people modifying the apostolic faith to suit political agendas.

You focus on Pike and his liberal theology and apparently on other liberal causes such as the ordination of women, the ordination of gays and lesbians. Granted, such positions violate Scripture. However, who says we shouldn't?

The very large number of people who have left the mainline churches over this issue, for a start.

I, for one, do not hold that Scripture is inerrant. Indeed, I'm not about to do that when I see it supporting sexual oppression and oppressing women.

One does not even have to regard scripture as inerrant to reject this approach; one could admit minor contradictions, for example, the divergent genealogies in Ss. Matthew and Luke, and still reject this as transgressing sacred tradition. Also, I daresay you don't want to reject scriptural inerrancy given that someone, not myself, could come along and simply dismiss the verses used in support of Process in their entirety as the result of an erroneous, subjective interpretation of God by anicent Hebrews who lacked the philosophical erudition of later authors. Errant scripture is a blade with two edges.

There was no time before the Big Bang? We have been through this before. As I already said, the process God was never idle, but eternally creative. Hence, before this universe, God was interacting with another.

So to escape a flaw in Process, you posit the existence of another predeccessor universe, the existence of which cannot be proven? This, aside from being absurd, even accordng to the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, also suggests that Process is dualist, in that the Process semi-demiurge is dependent on there being some universe to interact with, not unlike the ecological relation of flora and fauna.

I view time as change , moving on, something happening. Hence, there has always been time, as God is eternally creative.

What you describe is contrary to established physical science; what is more, semantically speaking, it is not time, but events in time.

Furthermore, I cannot see how without movement or change anything can be made to happen. Someone had to strike a match to set off the Big Bang.

Take it up with Stephen Hawking, or alternately, with God. Alternately, a perusal of A Brief History of Time
might well be helpful. For that matter, the Physical and Life Sciences forum on this site could provide useful answers.

Note by the way that we are not discussing subjective matters of interpretation, but the results of falsifiable experimental matter, that is to say, the product of objective truths.

Process dumps the whole Bible because the Bible speaks continually about God's omnipotence, unknowability, and foreknowledge? As I said before, I beg to disagree. The Bible affirms that God has revealed himself or herself to us.

TNIV much?

Hence, we can know something about God. If we really can't know anything about God, then what good is the Bible anyway?

Its utility is limited when one admits to it doctrinal error, for example, regarding human sexuality.

When the Bible speaks of God as all-powerful, you have to take into account this may not mean in the sense of omnipotence.

Omnipotence literally means "all powerful" or having all potentialities; Aristotle defines God as actus purus, which has the effect of making God in a sense "omni-kinetic," which seems to me just as apt a rendering of "almighty."

As I said before, in the Bible, God appears analogous to a Father trying to gain control over his unruly children who often disappoint. Unless you assume God is some sort of sadomasochist and therefore enjoys feeling pain and disappointment, and then rigs creation so it will provide him with these, the notion of a truly omnipotent God in the B Also, as we have already been through, more than one passage in Scripture clearly affirming that that God does not have an absolute foreknowledge of the future. Indeed, other passages suggest God isn't always aware of events actually happening. He isn't sure what is happening with Sodom and so comes down to see, according to the Bible. My point is that the high God of classical theism is not to be found in the Bible.

One cannot argue that a God described as "almighty," "unsearchable in His ways," "the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow," and so on is mutable, and limited according to knowledge and power.

Process ignores the classical notion of love and conflates empathy with love? Our basic experience of love always has a real degree of empathy to it. Therefore, it is hard to see how a love without empathy, as provided by Anselm and Aquinas, meets any criterion for real love.

Actually, the mere experience of loving non-human parts of creation, with which empathy is impossible, shows that love does not require empathy. Note also that an omniscient God knows how we feel, and understands it, better than we do, which renders the human construct of empathy rather superfluous. Empathy is like the binary one dimensional light/dark sight of some miniscule life forms compared with three dimensional, color-specific human vision.

Process is atheistic because God is posited to be in a symbiotic relationship with creation, like a Man of War? Process views the universe as a living organism. Hence, no part or process goes on independently of the rest. It is all interrelated. All organisms are social, relational beings, cannot exist in a vacuum. Does the fact wee need others mean we're in a symbiotic relationship with them? If it does, who says the word "symbiotic' is negative in connotation? The process concept of God is that God is also a social-relational being, in fact the greatest of all social-relational beings, Hence, God cannot exist alone.

Thus, dualism.

There is no I without a thou. Hence, God needs the universe in order to be fully God. If God could have been just as happy, whole, and complete without the universe as with one, then why did God bother to create it? What sense does it make to speak of serving God? What can you serve to a God who has everything and therefore needs nothing from us?

On this point one might find it interesting to refer to Lutheran sacramental theology. The main problem in general with your position however is that it depends ro a large extent on anthropomorphology.

The Cappadocians did not put any qualifiers on God's omnipotence? They did argue that God cannot change, cannot experience emotion, cannot enjoy any sexual feelings, as sex is an all-animal impulse.

It would be fairer to say the Cappadocian perspective is "does not," rather than "cannot;" change, emotion et cetera are foreign to the revealed divine nature.

That's why they claimed unity with the Spirit excludes all passion.

You should revise on the subject of "passion;" you are herein subscribing to a Western misconception, if not caricature, of Byzantine hamartiology. Add the Philokalia to your reading list.

When they pointed to the mystery of God, they were simply affirming the unknowability of God found in Scripture? Well, Scripture also affirms the knowability of God. God is revealed to us. Furthermore, they were in fact dealing with the muddled thinking about God and admitted it. Hence, Gregory of Nazinazus spoke of a great confusion about the Spirit, saying, "some consider it energy, others a creature, others God; still others are uncertain what to think of it, out of reverence for Scripture, which makes no clear statement."

This is a gross distortion of St. Gregory the Theologian, who is among other things noted for leading the charge against Pneumatomachianism.

Various Deists are content with God as an undefined X? Evidence please. And even if you could come up with some, that would simply show their concept of God is inadequate and really atheistic, as without any character, God is meaningless.

Deism posits there is a God, without defining in any dogmatic way the specific relationship between God and the universe, although some deists like to refer to God as a "divine watchmaker;" some are Freemasons, and Masonic theological constructs may be interesting to refer to.

Process is a philosophical system contrary to Scripture. C'mon. We have already been though this.
Process leads to the moral bankruptcy of the church? Mere right-wing inflammatory rhetoric.

If God changes, and if we say that God can change his mond, for example, on the ordination of women, homosexuality et al, then Christian morality becomes subjective, malleable and ultimately bankrupt; it is reduced to a worthless scheme for providing nominal religious certification to prevailing political sentiment.

My views are against the rules of these churches? Tell them that. They will know where I am coming from. And even if they are, that says nothing about their validity.

The UMC Book of Discipline precludes cross-denominational membership in general (there are exceptions, I believe); more specifically, being a Unitarian and a member of the UMC, PCUSA and SA requires concurrently holding to two or more incompatible statements of faith.

Furthermore, I did not say I was against the Trinity, to start with. What I said was that its traditional formulations are a big mess. And I know I have well provided ample evidence here.

Most of what you have provided has been intellectual comment as opposed to evidence per se, which I am not opposed to, by the way, but one should not call rhetoric "evidence."

Now, a purely rhetorical argument is not unappealing to me, but it does require an equality of erudition. To wit, I would urge you to view in your library, or alternately acquire, the Philokalia (trans. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware), Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis, the Orthodox Way, by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Orthodox Christology by Fr. Peter Farrington (for an OO perspective), and the Arena of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. There are actually several more specific volumes on the fourth and fifth century fathers, or by them, that I would reccommend, but these works refer in turn to those.

One might also emphatically suggest you review An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, by St. John of Damascus, which is freely available online.

 

[Hoghead1]

You don't do research for chaps? Well, old Chappy, I don't listen to anyone unless they put the evidence, the case right before my eyes. So stop copping out and state your case. You brought up about slavery. I fail to see the relevance of this tot his discussion. Certainly you are not comparing the persons of the Trinity to slaves. From what I do know about Roman slavery, they had a multiplicity of views on the subject. Are you tying to argue that some did not consider their slaves as having personalities or rights and therefore this shows the concept of a man did not go with the concept of a personality and therefore the Trinitarian references to men I cited really don't mean the persons are personalities? Well now, I guess that makes them kind of interior its, something less than our sense of a person, now doesn't it? If that is what the Cappadocians are claiming, then they are more muddled and confused than I thought. However, I doubt that is the case, though you push that way. Also, not all Romans viewed their slaves in that way. Slaves could become free, earn Roman citizenship, and become figures of some note. So don't give me some that the Romans all depersonalized their slaves. The Stoics, as I recall, argued that a soul is planted in every human, and that incudes slaves, at birth. Are you saying that the church viewed slaves in much the same way? If so, how come many leaders found slavery despicable. See, I have no idea where you are trying to go here, because you want to appear so hoity-totty and view it beneath your dignity to make your case.
Man, egos, and personalities are not acceptable for the Trinity? Well, Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa sure thought so. And if they didn't, how are they offering anything but a depersonalizing view of the Trinity as some sort of unfeeling mechanical forces and impersonal essences?

The Cappadocians said you should not speak of three? Well, as I said, Gregory of Nyssa should thought so.

I'm ignorant about Scripture and therefore don't know about the many passages that affirm god is omniscient and omnipresent? You hesitate to point them out and feel that having to do so lessens your opinion of my intellect? Well, let me tell you something, Mr. Big Shot Dot the O, I have given Scripture ample study and I do not find it supports these notions. I have more than once explained my rationale. I realize that your are a newbie that the newbies need repetition, but that's enough here. Now, if you think I missed something, just you get busy and show me.

We should not accept a theology that satisfy us; rather, we should accept on the criterion set up by the Apostles? the Apostles? Well, exactly what kind of criterion do you understand then as having? Who says their criterion would not satisfy us. And their theological schema does not satisfy us, why bother with it? No matter how different you may want to make God from us and our standards, still that model of God has to satisfy our needs,wants, and desires; otherwise, it is rubbish.

Choosing something that appeals to us goes against Galatians and Thessalonians? I sure don't find that to be the case. Again, when you lunch the attack, you have to responsibility of providing evidence.

Origin was declared a heretic? What dos really have to do with anything here? I don't agree with the concept of a 'heretic" in the first place. Furthermore, it is very obvious to me that you are choosing a theological scheme that best fits and is most appealing to your personal politics and morality. By your very own standards, you are being a hypocrite.

A good contemporary theologian ought to know St. Gregory of Palamas? As I said, I never heard his name until you mentioned it. I am not ashamed of this. I realize my limitations and know that I cannot be expected to know everything. To begin with, I totally reject this whole saint concept. I feel this title unduly deifies mere mortal, fallible human beings. I don't think that the saints are above us, some holier-that-thou exclusive club. I think the "saints" are just like the rest of us, that they put their pants on one leg and a time and defecate at least once a day, that their opinions are no more scared and holy than those of the rest of us, that their opinions deserve to be challenged, just like those of the rest of us. I have never seen his name mentioned even once in the process literature. I have not seen his name mentioned once in any of the major theologians I read. I have not seen his name mentioned even once in the major church histories I have read, though possible in reference to some minor, obscure figure who isn't worth remembering. Remember, you are from the East, I am working from the West. And we in the West have gotten along just fine, thank you very much, without him in the picture. I see no immediate reason why I should regard him as anything but a minor figure with out-of-date ideas that are not worth bothering with. Now, if you feel we are all inferior to you because we don't know about him, then the burden and responsibility falls upon make a big, big case why we should consider him. Don' tell me, show me.

When the Bible speaks of God as Almighty or all-powerful (not sure that this is even a right translation), that means God can just absolutely anything no limits. Hmmm. Doesn't that mean God could create a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it? Moving on, as I said before and will say again, there is much in Scripture to question this is what it really means when it speaks of God.

Who says the Bible follows Aristotle? I sure don't. And I don't agree with Aristotle anyway. I believe he unduly enshrined the immune and the immutable. I am aware that Aquinas also stated God is an actus purus. However, as I have pointed out, he threw some sharp qualifiers on his claim for divine omnipotence.

One cannot say that the biblical God who is almighty, unsearchable in his ways, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, is mutable and subject to limits? As I pointed out before, about 100 biblical passages do speak of God as changing. Also, the term "almighty" is subject to more than one interpretation, not all meaning omnipotent. I have already pointed out several times why the Bible does not view as truly omnipotent.

I misunderstand the concept of "passion" and should put the "Philokalia" on my reading list. You should get busy and put Niebuhr and the Cappadocians on yours. For example, Gregory of Nyssa equated spirituality with freedom from the flesh and defined sin as primarily sensual pleasure. He stated, "It is not allowable to ascribe our constitutional liability to that human nature formed in the divine light. Our love of pleasure took its beginning from our being made in the likeness of the irrational creature. "In his "De Virginite" he concludes all sexual activity is inherently wrong. Niebuhr writes, "It is unnecessary to make an extensive analysis of the Greek Fathers to establish the conclusion that the tendency of Greek thought to attribute evil to animal passion tempted Hellenic Christianity to a fairly consistent identification of sin as the love of pleasure, with sensuality and lust and prompted it to make sexual life the particular symbol of this lust." Hence, I think my point stands, that they viewed the world of time, change and emotion as totally antithetical to God and viewed salvation as a union with a static, emotionally dead impersonal absolute.

God doesn't need empathy to know us, as he knows us completely because he knows his predetermined plan in detail? Knowledge of a plan is one thing, knowledge of the thing fleshed out is a horse of a whole other color. Beethoven was the creator of his ninth symphony and therefore knew the plan or score in great detail. He tried and failed to conduct its premier, because he was deaf and so had no feedback what was actually happening out there. All knowledge comes from experience, not plans. If God is to truly know us, then he has to empathically experience us. All knowledge begins with an empathic response to the datum.

One should not consider rhetoric evidence? If you that is true for me, then you need to hold it true for the both of us. And what you call rhetoric, I call evidence and a reasoned account. I'm not here to screw abound, sing songs, play games. I'm here for the serious purpose of providing a solid rational case for what I say. I like to think I do a pretty good job of it. Anything I have said here was well-received by my dissertation committee and the process community, all of whom have very discerning tastes and no do put up with mere rhetoric, contrary to what you may think.

I should go look at all these sources you recommend? You should get busy and go look at the major sources in process, Whitehead, Hartshorne, etc. You led me to believe you wanted to learn about process. OK, great. So, what is all this other material doing in here?

I'm in some sort of violation n my membership in four churches? This is a mere side issue. Also, How would you even begin to know? You are not a member of any single one of these. None of these churches ever asked if I had a membership in another. Since you got way off topic and asked, when I joined the SA, that was because I used to play trumpet for their services. When the Major asked me to join, I said I count's because I couldn't" sign there statement of faith, as I am totally against all forms of temperance. He simply said that's OK, go ahead and sing anyway, so I did. Any of the churches I have ever been affiliated with are very open in matters of doctrine and therefore don't hit you over the head with a bunch of dogmas you must adhere to and never question.

Calvin is not considered a church father by the Calvinists. Oh,c'mon. He's viewed as a heretic and therefore can't be considered a church father? I think you should check out some basic works in theology; I'm sure you will find major sources have a different definition of what a church father is. Anyhow, this is a side issue. Please in future emails, avoid getting off topic and going into all these side issues.
I need to review the Arian controversy; your church offers a compelling rebuttal of what I have to say? Well, I have said a lot here, so I am not sure what specifically you are talking about. It is amply clear from the record, that the Arians rejected Christ's Deity, because, according to Scripture, Christ changed, suffered, whereas God does not change or suffer. The other points I made are solid, logical arguments, and so I am not giving up on them, unless you offer a definite rebuttal and not blow me off, saying go read this and that.

Calvinism can successfully rebut process because it can point to all sorts of biblical passages that prove predestination? I've heard that one before, have been there, done that. And in not one case, did the selected passage prove predestination, election, etc. To take page from your own book, I don't have time to do your research for you, Old Chappie. If you insist, I will bring up specific passages, but that lessens my respect for your intellect, s you should already been on the ball and checked these ou and realized they do not prove predestination.

Why bother with Christianity if it got something wrong for centuries? This is a no=brainer. I'm surprised a smart guy like you didn't figure all this out. Anyhow, since you didn't, I would say for the same reason we hold with science and many other fields and do not throw them out because they got some things wrong over the years.

One has to commit to one interpretation or the others? That makes absolutely no sense to me. The bible is not a work in metaphysics, nor in systematic theology. The Bible presents a collection of seemingly contradictory snapshot of God, leaving it to the reader to straighten all this out. I find process helpful here, ass it argues that seemingly contradictory adjective can be applied to the same entity, provided they address different aspects. Hence, the fact some passages refer to God changing, while others not is simply due to the fact they refer to different aspects of God. The biblical God is both static and dynamic.t ass the process God. God appear to know certain futures, in some passages, but not I n others. That is due to the fact the Bible is talking about different aspects of the future. Some things may have become set in cement, others not. It just depends.

The Orthodox assume that some heretics are muddled? This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Certainly, it is the cases that at least one Cappadocian, whom I have cited and quoted, saw everyone deeply confused on the subject of the Spirit. And that includes the Bible, which is said to make no clear statement., that is an interesting comment because it clearly demonstrates that the Trinity is not found fully formed in the Bible

You obviously have trouble with people using their political agenda to choose their theology. The irony here is that is precisely what you appear to be doing.

If we dare assume God can change his mind, we will end of with a morally bankrupt[t church? Interesting, because, you see, my argument is precisely the opposite. I argue that classical theism provided a morally bankrupt church because it assumed God can not change. God is the great sanctifier of the status quo. The rulers are all in power because God put them there and God does not change his mind. And therefore we have no business trying to change anything, questioning the authority of our rulers, rebelling against them. After all, cruel and unjust rulers were predestined by God to be that way, probably in order to punish us for our sins. So we should just suck it up. At least, that was what Cal vin had to say. And I am sure many before and after Calvin also agreed. Hence, a God who cannot change becomes a God of tyranny and an enemy of social change and progress. If God can change his mind on women in general, women in the ministry, gays and lesbians, what won't he change his mind on next? Granted, all these refer to biblical laws and rules. But who says they were all the work of God? I do not believe a God of love seeks to oppress people. Yet, in the Bible, we find God legalizing slavery, the beating of slaves, selling your daughter into slavery, etc. I don't think God was behind all this, to start with. And if he was, he doggone better change his mind, because discrimination and oppression have no place in a community of , freedom, and justice.

I don't know what Deists you have been reading, but they are noted for holding as their central tenant that God is the great watchmaker. That was one of their proofs for God. And if you do find some that did not do that left God as a void, they plainly did not do a good job of it.

Liberal Christianity is all wrong, and that's proven by the fact many people have left liberal churches? Exactly how large a number and according to whose statistics? I know liberal Christianity is not for everyone, no theology is. I know that many do not agree with the ordination of women, gays, and lesbians. So I remind everyone that the church should resist against any and all forms of discrimination and sexual oppression. Of course, such practices may violate Scripture or some sacred tradition. so what? I don't know many Christians who could even begin to live by all the laws in the Bible. We have to cherry pick and be choosy what we are going to follow and what not. Most Christians will admit that slavery is wrong, despite it is legalized and sanctified in Scripture. By the same token, it makes sense to abolish other aspects of Scripture that oppress, such as the notion women are grossly inferior, should not preach,etc.

Have I heard of the law of the excluded middle? Have you ever heard of the law of polarity? The latter argues that given any two seemingly attributers, becoming-being, independent-dependent,etc., neither side can be shown to be superior the other, each side is a virtue, and both belong in the concrete description of any real entity. C'mon, I just went over this in my last email.

My view of time is contrary to the physical sciences? How? ?Give your evidence. Don't tell me and run, show me. It was from Whitehead that I took my definition of time as change, something happening, movement. And Whitehead was deeply interested in science and how it was leading us to redefine major concepts, such as time. It is not time, but events in time? I don't follow you here. In process, time is not a container sitting there, waiting to be filled. Time and events are one. Take it up with Hawking ? Take what up? Explain please. Are you arguing it took no movement to start
creation? That appears counterintuitive to me. God had to speak to create, and speaking is a movement. God underwent change because he went from nonspeaking to speaking.

It's absurd to posit a universe before this one? No, it isn't. Science is open to the possibility of multiple universes. Furthermore, this makes sense from a process perspective where God is never idle, but eternally creative.

The bounds between the mutable and immutable aspects of God is arbitrary? Bold criticism. Computer problem..,. Wilnt Will send rest ASAP.

 

[Wgw]

You don't do research for chaps? Well, old Chappy, I don't listen to anyone unless they put the evidence, the case right before my eyes.

There are certain points relating to nomenclature which are not arguments or points to be made in a debate, but are rather part of the prerequisite background information one should know before entering into that debate. You apparently are unfamiliar with the Roman conception of personhood; acquiring an understanding of what is meant by Prosopa is quite easy and you do not require my help to do it; furthermore, it is not a controversial point; frankly, we should not even have to discuss this in the course of this debate.

The Cappadocians said you should not speak of three? Well, as I said, Gregory of Nyssa should thought so.

I have quoted from rough memory an example.

I'm ignorant about Scripture and therefore don't know about the many passages that affirm god is omniscient and omnipresent? You hesitate to point them out and feel that having to do so lessens your opinion of my intellect? Well, let me tell you something, Mr. Big Shot Dot the O, I have given Scripture ample study and I do not find it supports these notions. I have more than once explained my rationale. I realize that your are a newbie that the newbies need repetition, but that's enough here. Now, if you think I missed something, just you get busy and show me.

Very well, I will address this in a subsequent point, although I am surprised you are requesting specifics versus simply proceeding to debate the verses in question; I had assumed you knew what I was talking about.

We should not accept a theology that satisfy us; rather, we should accept on the criterion set up by the Apostles? the Apostles? Well, exactly what kind of criterion do you understand then as having? Who says their criterion would not satisfy us. And their theological schema does not satisfy us, why bother with it?

Truth, perhaps?

No matter how different you may want to make God from us and our standards, still that model of God has to satisfy our needs,wants, and desires; otherwise, it is rubbish.

The Orthodox believe God became incarnate, uniting Himself to us by means of the Incarnation; thus our Lord is fully God and fully man; I don't know how much less different from us you might expect to be. You seem to want to use Process as the framework for anthropomorphologiIng God while rejecting the Incarnation of God, his personal and hypostatic union with us.

Choosing something that appeals to us goes against Galatians and Thessalonians? I sure don't find that to be the case. Again, when you lunch the attack, you have to responsibility of providing evidence.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 compels us to follow the apostolic kerygma. Galatians 1:8 anathematizes those who "preach another Gospel." Thus, of we reject the Apostolic faith for something more personally convenient, we anathematize, or cut ourselves off, from the Body of Christ.

Origin was declared a heretic? What dos really have to do with anything here? I don't agree with the concept of a 'heretic" in the first place. Furthermore, it is very obvious to me that you are choosing a theological scheme that best fits and is most appealing to your personal politics and morality. By your very own standards, you are being a hypocrite.

I believe I have expressed that my own personal preference would be to opt for some vaguely Origenist-Universalist scheme, however, it was correctly reasoned by the Fathers that Origen had gone off the deep end, so to speak, thus, I cannot embrace these views as much as I might otherwise prefer to. The concept of a "heretic" in a negative sense is scripturally justifiable on the basis of Galatians 1:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and other verses.

A good contemporary theologian ought to know St. Gregory of Palamas?

Certainly. I'm Orthodox and I knew who Channing was years before we had this conversation. The contemporary theological scholar, armed with access to the Internet, should be aware of the key players in each of the more signifigant debates in the history of the Church, and have at least a basic understanding of what they taught. More specialized knowledge is appropriate closest to the field of speciality for that scholar.

As I said, I never heard his name until you mentioned it. I am not ashamed of this. I realize my limitations and know that I cannot be expected to know everything. To begin with, I totally reject this whole saint concept. I feel this title unduly deifies mere mortal, fallible human beings. I don't think that the saints are above us, some holier-that-thou exclusive club. I think the "saints" are just like the rest of us, that they put their pants on one leg and a time and defecate at least once a day, that their opinions are no more scared and holy than those of the rest of us, that their opinions deserve to be challenged, just like those of the rest of us.

As an Orthodox, I feel obliged to venerate St. Gregory Palamas by name, however, there are a great many more saints whom I greatly admire who are not pertinent to this conversation, and indeed, that I would not expect you to know, for example, St. Spyridon or Mar Bar Salibi (who I rather reccommend, by the way; his Amusing Tales collection is exceptional).

I have never seen his name mentioned even once in the process literature. I have not seen his name mentioned once in any of the major theologians I read. I have not seen his name mentioned even once in the major church histories I have read, though possible in reference to some minor, obscure figure who isn't worth remembering. Remember, you are from the East, I am working from the West.

I used to be a Methodist, and an Anglican. At any rate, St. Gregory Palamas is not "minor" as far as Eastern theology is concerned; he is the eastern equivalent of Thomas Aquinas. Just as Orthodox study Aquinas, Western Christoans should study Palamas. Also St. Symeon the New Theologian.

And we in the West have gotten along just fine, thank you very much, without him in the picture.

That's debateable given the thousands upon thousands of micro-schisms, and now the free fall in membership in the venerable mainline churches.

I see no immediate reason why I should regard him as anything but a minor figure with out-of-date ideas that are not worth bothering with. Now, if you feel we are all inferior to you because we don't know about him, then the burden and responsibility falls upon make a big, big case why we should consider him. Don' tell me, show me.

I think a very specific case can be made that Palamas provides the answers to the questions Process theologians ask, without the great disadvantage of discarding classical theism. Also, why should we possibly even consider an ancient Patrisric figure as "out of date?" If modernity is a legitimate criteria for evaluating the usefulness of theological concepts, we should reject Christianity, Judaism, and all the other ancient religions of the world, and embrace something entirely novel.

When the Bible speaks of God as Almighty or all-powerful (not sure that this is even a right translation), that means God can just absolutely anything no limits. Hmmm. Doesn't that mean God could create a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it? Moving on, as I said before and will say again, there is much in Scripture to question this is what it really means when it speaks of God.

Hypothetically, an omnipotent deity could limit Himself. Indeed one could say that, in a specific sense that does not apply to all three prosopa, our Lord limited himself in the incarnation, by taking onto himself our Human nature. Orthodox hymnography for Good Friday makes this point rather eloquently; I might well wuote some of the interesting bits of the Triodion.

Who says the Bible follows Aristotle? I sure don't. And I don't agree with Aristotle anyway. I believe he unduly enshrined the immune and the immutable. I am aware that Aquinas also stated God is an actus purus. However, as I have pointed out, he threw some sharp qualifiers on his claim for divine omnipotence.

Well, logically speaking, one should either use Aristotelian logic, or openly identify which Null-A system one is seeking to use, rather than just arbitrarily indulging in logical fallacies and contradictions.

One cannot say that the biblical God who is almighty, unsearchable in his ways, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, is mutable and subject to limits? As I pointed out before, about 100 biblical passages do speak of God as changing. Also, the term "almighty" is subject to more than one interpretation, not all meaning omnipotent. I have already pointed out several times why the Bible does not view as truly omnipotent.

I misunderstand the concept of "passion" and should put the "Philokalia" on my reading list. You should get busy and put Niebuhr and the Cappadocians on yours. For example, Gregory of Nyssa equated spirituality with freedom from the flesh and defined sin as primarily sensual pleasure. He stated, "It is not allowable to ascribe our constitutional liability to that human nature formed in the divine light. Our love of pleasure took its beginning from our being made in the likeness of the irrational creature. "In his "De Virginite" he concludes all sexual activity is inherently wrong. Niebuhr writes, "It is unnecessary to make an extensive analysis of the Greek Fathers to establish the conclusion that the tendency of Greek thought to attribute evil to animal passion tempted Hellenic Christianity to a fairly consistent identification of sin as the love of pleasure, with sensuality and lust and prompted it to make sexual life the particular symbol of this lust." Hence, I think my point stands, that they viewed the world of time, change and emotion as totally antithetical to God and viewed salvation as a union with a static, emotionally dead impersonal absolute.

The Cappadocians were on my reading list years ago, and are now, to the fullest extent possible, on my "read list." Niebuhr I am familiar with, but not greatly interested in, in that he engages in the sort of caricature of the Eastern church that was the norm in prior decades.

God doesn't need empathy to know us, as he knows us completely because he knows his predetermined plan in detail?

No, once again, you resort to anthropomorphology. God, who knows all things, who is eternal, knows these events in an extratemporal manner (see Exodus 3:14-15, also, "before Abraham was, I AM, et cetera"). It would actually be as misleading to say that for God, they already happened, as it would be to say that he merely has a plan for them which he has not yet experienced. Both completely fail to address the relationship of an eternal omniscient omnipotent being with time.

Knowledge of a plan is one thing, knowledge of the thing fleshed out is a horse of a whole other color. Beethoven was the creator of his ninth symphony and therefore knew the plan or score in great detail. He tried and failed to conduct its premier, because he was deaf and so had no feedback what was actually happening out there. All knowledge comes from experience, not plans. If God is to truly know us, then he has to empathically experience us. All knowledge begins with an empathic response to the datum.

More anthropomorphology.

One should not consider rhetoric evidence? If you that is true for me, then you need to hold it true for the both of us. And what you call rhetoric, I call evidence and a reasoned account. I'm not here to screw abound, sing songs, play games. I'm here for the serious purpose of providing a solid rational case for what I say. I like to think I do a pretty good job of it. Anything I have said here was well-received by my dissertation committee and the process community, all of whom have very discerning tastes and no do put up with mere rhetoric, contrary to what you may think.

Note the appeal to authority contained in that statement is not useful to this debate.

I should go look at all these sources you recommend? You should get busy and go look at the major sources in process, Whitehead, Hartshorne, etc. You led me to believe you wanted to learn about process. OK, great. So, what is all this other material doing in here?

I in theory would like to learn more about process, however, this has to be a two way street; to the extent you depict process as contrary to Eastern theology, I have to reject it. Now, using the material I suggested, you could inform yourself as to Eastern theology and the perhaps attempt to constructively reconcile the two, as opposed to simply complaining about how dated and irrevelevant you consider St. Gregory Palamas to be,

I'm in some sort of violation n my membership in four churches? This is a mere side issue. Also, How would you even begin to know? You are not a member of any single one of these. None of these churches ever asked if I had a membership in another.

I was formerly a member of the UMC; I have a rather intimate knowledge of this subject. One reason I left owed to the impossibility of being a member of the UMC and the established church in the UK concurrently.

Since you got way off topic and asked, when I joined the SA, that was because I used to play trumpet for their services. When the Major asked me to join, I said I count's because I couldn't" sign there statement of faith, as I am totally against all forms of temperance. He simply said that's OK, go ahead and sing anyway, so I did. Any of the churches I have ever been affiliated with are very open in matters of doctrine and therefore don't hit you over the head with a bunch of dogmas you must adhere to and never question.

I don't much care if you are a member, or in the case of the SA, an "ally" one might say, of these disparate bodies, but to the extent that, for example, the confessions of the UMC, PCUSA and SA differ from that of the UUA, I think that the case can be made that you ought to pick one side or the other, in order to respect the confessional standards of these churches.

Calvin is not considered a church father by the Calvinists.

Indeed not, although not because we or Rome anathematized him. Rather, both Rome and the Calvinists refard rhe Patristic era as having ended; Rome regards St. John of Damascus as the last Father; after him were the Scholastics. The Orthodox disagree, although it would be unusual to refer to the study of someone like St. John of Kronstadt as "Patristic."

Oh,c'mon. He's viewed as a heretic and therefore can't be considered a church father? I think you should check out some basic works in theology; I'm sure you will find major sources have a different definition of what a church father is. Anyhow, this is a side issue. Please in future emails, avoid getting off topic and going into all these side issues.

Note that this is not an e-mail, and you are posting a thread on a topic I started, the premise of which is that non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural, so I rather fear the ship of topicality has sailed.

I need to review the Arian controversy; your church offers a compelling rebuttal of what I have to say? Well, I have said a lot here, so I am not sure what specifically you are talking about. It is amply clear from the record, that the Arians rejected Christ's Deity, because, according to Scripture, Christ changed, suffered, whereas God does not change or suffer. The other points I made are solid, logical arguments, and so I am not giving up on them, unless you offer a definite rebuttal and not blow me off, saying go read this and that.

It is not unreasonable for me to expect my interlocutors to, for example, know why Arianism was rejected despite the objections Arius used, for example, the Orthodox Christological premise of hypostatic union expressed in the Creed, or for that matter, to expect my interlocutors to either have a knowledge of relevant source material or an interest and willingness to acquire it. Particularly when they claim a PhD in theology.

Calvinism can successfully rebut process because it can point to all sorts of biblical passages that prove predestination? I've heard that one before, have been there, done that. And in not one case, did the selected passage prove predestination, election, etc. To take page from your own book, I don't have time to do your research for you, Old Chappie. If you insist, I will bring up specific passages, but that lessens my respect for your intellect, s you should already been on the ball and checked these ou and realized they do not prove predestination.

Feel free, although please do it in another thread, as I wish to keep at least partially on the theme or Trinitarianism.

Why bother with Christianity if it got something wrong for centuries? This is a no=brainer. I'm surprised a smart guy like you didn't figure all this out. Anyhow, since you didn't, I would say for the same reason we hold with science and many other fields and do not throw them out because they got some things wrong over the years.

This view is basically contrary to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Galatians 1:8, Matthew 16:18 and other verses that support the idea of the true faith, delivered once to the Apostles.

One has to commit to one interpretation or the others?

Where they are directly contradictory, one cannot hold both contradictory views concurrently, without engaging in Orwellian doublethink.

That makes absolutely no sense to me. The bible is not a work in metaphysics, nor in systematic theology. The Bible presents a collection of seemingly contradictory snapshot of God, leaving it to the reader to straighten all this out. I find process helpful here, ass it argues that seemingly contradictory adjective can be applied to the same entity, provided they address different aspects.

Ok, doublethink then.

Hence, the fact some passages refer to God changing, while others not is simply due to the fact they refer to different aspects of God. The biblical God is both static and dynamic.t ass the process God. God appear to know certain futures, in some passages, but not I n others. That is due to the fact the Bible is talking about different aspects of the future. Some things may have become set in cement, others not. It just depends.

The problem is, you haven't identified which "aspects" those are, and I have yet to find an unambiguous defintion of how process treats this subject, which is to say that Process treats it on an arbitrary manner, unlike the brifht line distinctions of the Orthodox doctrines of the Incarnation and the essence/energies distinction.

The Orthodox assume that some heretics are muddled? This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Certainly, it is the cases that at least one Cappadocian, whom I have cited and quoted, saw everyone deeply confused on the subject of the Spirit. And that includes the Bible, which is said to make no clear statement., that is an interesting comment because it clearly demonstrates that the Trinity is not found fully formed in the Bible

You misquoted St. Gregory the Theologian, entirely glossong over the critical role he played in defining the Spirit.

You obviously have trouble with people using their political agenda to choose their theology. The irony here is that is precisely what you appear to be doing.

This is mere ad hominem insinuation, entirely unsupported by evidence. In fact, my faith has more than once required me to reevaluate my politics. Note by the way that I have not alleged, nor will I allege, that you yourself are in any sense guilty of choosing your theology on the basis of your politics; rather it is my contention that Process Theology in a general way is abused by various third parties in this manner, and you rather ought to stand up to them.

If we dare assume God can change his mind, we will end of with a morally bankrupt[t church? Interesting, because, you see, my argument is precisely the opposite. I argue that classical theism provided a morally bankrupt church because it assumed God can not change. God is the great sanctifier of the status quo. The rulers are all in power because God put them there and God does not change his mind. And therefore we have no business trying to change anything, questioning the authority of our rulers, rebelling against them. After all, cruel and unjust rulers were predestined by God to be that way, probably in order to punish us for our sins. So we should just suck it up. At least, that was what Cal vin had to say. And I am sure many before and after Calvin also agreed.

This red herring is a bit of a non-sequitur. A divine opposition to oppression does not require a mutable God; if anything, having a mutable deity means various petty dictators and demagogues can apply oressure to have the faith changed to reflect their policies, something which historically, the idea of divine immutability made rather difficult. For example, huge political pressure is being brought to bear on the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church over human sexuality, driven in part by the idea that doctrine is malleable and subordinate to secular caprice.

Hence, a God who cannot change becomes a God of tyranny and an enemy of social change and progress. If God can change his mind on women in general, women in the ministry, gays and lesbians, what won't he change his mind on next? Granted, all these refer to biblical laws and rules. But who says they were all the work of God? I do not believe a God of love seeks to oppress people. Yet, in the Bible, we find God legalizing slavery, the beating of slaves, selling your daughter into slavery, etc. I don't think God was behind all this, to start with. And if he was, he doggone better change his mind, because discrimination and oppression have no place in a community of , freedom, and justice.

Thus, we are presented with the grim spectacle of second-guessing divine precept, which is in my opinion basically equivalent to misotheism.

I don't know what Deists you have been reading, but they are noted for holding as their central tenant that God is the great watchmaker. That was one of their proofs for God. And if you do find some that did not do that left God as a void, they plainly did not do a good job of it.

Once again, you resort to a strawman caricature of via negativa.

Liberal Christianity is all wrong, and that's proven by the fact many people have left liberal churches? Exactly how large a number and according to whose statistics? I know liberal Christianity is not for everyone, no theology is. I know that many do not agree with the ordination of women, gays, and lesbians.

All major surveys of religious affiliation show the mainline churches are shrinking. If you have any doubt about this, ask the Anglican blokes in "Scripture, Tradition, Reason." It has been projected that at the current rate of decline, the ECUSA will be gone by 2050. I find that to be in all probability an exaggeration, but these denominations are losing members in the face of a growing population. So too is the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, the most liberal and also the most "ethnic" Orthodox jurisdiction in the states.

So I remind everyone that the church should resist against any and all forms of discrimination and sexual oppression. Of course, such practices may violate Scripture or some sacred tradition. so what? I don't know many Christians who could even begin to live by all the laws in the Bible. We have to cherry pick and be choosy what we are going to follow and what not. Most Christians will admit that slavery is wrong, despite it is legalized and sanctified in Scripture. By the same token, it makes sense to abolish other aspects of Scripture that oppress, such as the notion women are grossly inferior, should not preach,etc

It is a gross distortion to describe slavery as "sanctified" by scripture.

Have I heard of the law of the excluded middle? Have you ever heard of the law of polarity? The latter argues that given any two seemingly attributers, becoming-being, independent-dependent,etc., neither side can be shown to be superior the other, each side is a virtue, and both belong in the concrete description of any real entity. C'mon, I just went over this in my last email.

This interestingly does not begin to address the Law of the Excluded Middle; if it did, one would have to argue my objection to it was both accurate and inaccurate, concurrently! Major logic fail.

My view of time is contrary to the physical sciences? How? ?Give your evidence. Don't tell me and run, show me.

Time began with the Big Bang. Ergo, temporal processes could not have pre-dated the Big Bang.

It was from Whitehead that I took my definition of time as change, something happening, movement. And Whitehead was deeply interested in science and how it was leading us to redefine major concepts, such as time.

Whitehead also predated several important discoveries in astrophysics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and other fields.

It is not time, but events in time? I don't follow you here. In process, time is not a container sitting there, waiting to be filled. Time and events are one. Take it up with Hawking ? Take what up? Explain please. Are you arguing it took no movement to start
creation?

I am not arguing; the fact that time began with the Big Bang is settled science.

That appears counterintuitive to me. God had to speak to create, and speaking is a movement. God underwent change because he went from nonspeaking to speaking.

This is a theological argument, which happens to directly contradict established science.

It's absurd to posit a universe before this one? No, it isn't. Science is open to the possibility of multiple universes.

The "many worlds" of quantum mechanics depend on wuantum events, which depend on time, which began with the big bang. Thus, the phrase "a universe before this one" has no meaning. Now, there is a theory of oscillating universes, which expand and contract, but this is increasingly rejected in favour of heat death; furthermore, the use of the word "before," as if both universes inhabited a common timeline, would still be misleading, given that Time would be destroyed and recreated with each oscillation.

 

[Hoghead1]

Here is the rest.



The distinctions and boundaries between the mutable and immutable aspects of God are arbitrary and subjective? I would appreciate it if you would spell out your objection here in more detail. What appears to be arbitrary about the Primordial nature and the consequent nature? I have provided you with a description what these consist of and how they interact. To me, there is nothing arbitrary here at all. God, like any personality is a synthesis of consistency and change. The PN denotes those aspects of God that are necessarily fixed: that God is always creative, always seeking to maximize beauty, etc. The consequent nature denotes God as ever-changing. Think of a person here. That distinction makes sense. I. for example, have been lifelong train buff. But if that is all you say about me, you have only described me in a very abstract sense. I am much different train buff now that I get to operate a real steam locomotive. What on earth is talking in such a way about the mutable and immutable aspects of a person is arbitrary? The CN and PN aren't arbitrarily cut off from one another or somehow separate, independent natures. The PN is the unconscious side seeking to complete itself by becoming conscious. You could say the CN is the PN having becomes conscious. You could say the CN in a very real sense is another dimension of the PN. In that sense, they compliment one another. How are their bounds arbitrary? They interconnect, they are not bounded off from o ne another.



The process God is dualistic because the process God needs the universe, like floral and fauna? First, process is seeking to overcome the God-world dualism had by classical theism, whereby God and the world are polar opposites, with the world against every fiber of God's being. One way main way this dualism is overcome is to argue that God does in fact need the universe. Hence, I don't see how God needing the universe sets up a dualism. Again, let me remind you that process understands the universe as a living organism, the body of God. So, yes, God is like the flora and fauna. God is supposed to be that way, the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles, not their negation,as per classical theism.



I should keep my mouth shut about the errancy of Scripture, as I could be demolished by a reply that the passages of Scripture which seem to back process are all erroneous? Well, let them try that argument. They are gong to have to do more than make a mere accusation. They are going to have their hands full, trying to demonstrate that such passages are a wrong impression of God, in the first placed. That means they are going to have to argue that classical theism is superior to process. Well, let them just try. We're ready for them.



We can refer to passages in Scripture that refer to god experiencing emotion as metaphors for the divine love without denying God's immutability? This is no criticism of process at all. It is precisely the process point of view: A complete account of God requires reference to both mutable and immutable aspects.



You assume Calvin really wasn't being contradictory, but using great wisdom. No way. It is contradictory, plain and simple, to argue for a dogmatic literalist approach, whereby the plain meaning of Scripture is said to be the real meaning, then turn around and violate that by arbitrarily selecting which passages you will or will not interpret literally. Traditionally, allegorical interpretations of Scripture were quite common. The Reformer's objection is that all this reading between the lines was turning Scripture into a nose of wax that could be twisted any way you want. And, OK, if you were gong to read some passages literally and others not so, what says you should read those passages which speak of God as immutable as literal, whereas those passages talking about God changing, etc., are mere figures of speech, having nothing to do with the actual reality of God? Why not go the opposite direction? The only valid reason for so doing is that you assume God is wholly immutable, which I think I have well established is an arbitrary and illogical assumption.



It was universally accepted, down through the ages, that the wise approach is to assume only those passages speaking of God's immutability are to be taken literally. I am aware of that. While the fathers may have assumed that was wise, I have good reason to question their judgment.



My criticism of the hypostatic union is arbitrary because it sets up a false dualism in God? Well, I don't know what else you could say abut this union, other than it does divide Christ into antithetical natures. The human is changeable and can suffer, the divine is unable to suffer. If there was really a unity here, then the natures would be seen flowing into one another, as is the case with the PN and CN.



Loving non-human entities proves love does not require empathy? All entities, in process are assumed to have feelings. All knowledge begins with an empathic response o the other. Furthermore, when you love someone, they become part of you, you feel their feelings, joys,, sorrows, etc. Love means at a minimum to derive the content of your being, from the loved object.



Empathy is superfluous? Sure, especially if you are a sociopath.



The main p[problem is that I depend on anthropomorphizing? Are you kidding? My position is that anthropomorphizing is not the problem, but the solution. Unless a genuine likeness or analogy exists between ourselves and the rest of reality, especially god, then we haven't got an inkling what's gong on.

Look, I enjoy you giving me a real workout. However, I noticed today especially, that you just seem to be grabbing off the shelf anything that looks like it might be a criticism of process and then just throwing it at me. Hence, I find many of your criticisms were vague. Again, I would appreciate it if you more carefully worked out your objections.

 

[Wgw]

Here is the rest.



The distinctions and boundaries between the mutable and immutable aspects of God are arbitrary and subjective? I would appreciate it if you would spell out your objection here in more detail. What appears to be arbitrary about the Primordial nature and the consequent nature? I have provided you with a description what these consist of and how they interact. To me, there is nothing arbitrary here at all. God, like any personality is a synthesis of consistency and change. The PN denotes those aspects of God that are necessarily fixed: that God is always creative, always seeking to maximize beauty, etc. The consequent nature denotes God as ever-changing. Think of a person here. That distinction makes sense.

Thus, by your own standards these are assigned arbitrarily, on the basis of aesthetics. Compare this with the bright line distinction, although not separation, between the humanity and divinity of our Lord. Or for that matter the bright line essence/energies distinction.

I. for example, have been lifelong train buff.

So have I. I particularly like EMUs and coaching stock.

But if that is all you say about me, you have only described me in a very abstract sense. I am much different train buff now that I get to operate a real steam locomotive. What on earth is talking in such a way about the mutable and immutable aspects of a person is arbitrary? The CN and PN aren't arbitrarily cut off from one another or somehow separate, independent natures. The PN is the unconscious side seeking to complete itself by becoming conscious. You could say the CN is the PN having becomes conscious. You could say the CN in a very real sense is another dimension of the PN. In that sense, they compliment one another. How are their bounds arbitrary? They interconnect, they are not bounded off from o ne another.

To the extent that one cannot say with certainty to which aupposed "nature" something belongs, which takes us into the arbitrary, subjective aspect of Process as a whole.

The process God is dualistic because the process God needs the universe, like floral and fauna? First, process is seeking to overcome the God-world dualism had by classical theism, whereby God and the world are polar opposites, with the world against every fiber of God's being.

Once again, you critique a strawman of the Orthodox doctrine, which Metropolitan Kallistos Ware controversially referred to as "panentheist," an appelation I have seen Process employ. So I am going to skip over this perspective, in that I am not interested in defending theologies I personally reject.

I should keep my mouth shut about the errancy of Scripture, as I could be demolished by a reply that the passages of Scripture which seem to back process are all erroneous?

Yes.

Well, let them try that argument. They are gong to have to do more than make a mere accusation. They are going to have their hands full, trying to demonstrate that such passages are a wrong impression of God, in the first placed. That means they are going to have to argue that classical theism is superior to process. Well, let them just try. We're ready for them.

Thus, you propose a battle royale which boils down to subjective interpretarions as to what God should be like, without Scripture to provide guidance. Sophistry, in other words. Such a debate would be such a profound waste of time as to make the notorious Jesus Seminar of Robert Funk (which has been justifiably ridiculed for the built-in biases of the voting system it used, and other problems) look like a worthy and industrious enterprise, in comparison.

We can refer to passages in Scripture that refer to god experiencing emotion as metaphors for the divine love without denying God's immutability? This is no criticism of process at all. It is precisely the process point of view: A complete account of God requires reference to both mutable and immutable aspects.

Except you propose immutability and divine love are incomoatible; they aren't.

You assume Calvin really wasn't being contradictory, but using great wisdom.

Not great; that would be too generous.

No way. It is contradictory, plain and simple, to argue for a dogmatic literalist approach, whereby the plain meaning of Scripture is said to be the real meaning, then turn around and violate that by arbitrarily selecting which passages you will or will not interpret literally. Traditionally, allegorical interpretations of Scripture were quite common.

Indeed so; the Orthodox rely heavily on allegorical, typologocal and Christological readings. However, we do so consistently, on the basis of the Alexandrian school and in harmony with the beliefs of the Church, as opposed to according to external or personal caprice.

I am going to skip ahead a bit, because once again, your lack of familiarity with the Orthodox doctrine results in a red herring. I am not here to defend Protestantism.

My criticism of the hypostatic union is arbitrary because it sets up a false dualism in God? Well, I don't know what else you could say abut this union, other than it does divide Christ into antithetical natures. The human is changeable and can suffer, the divine is unable to suffer. If there was really a unity here, then the natures would be seen flowing into one another, as is the case with the PN and CN.

Thus, Eutychianism, as I suspected.

Loving non-human entities proves love does not require empathy? All entities, in process are assumed to have feelings. All knowledge begins with an empathic response o the other. Furthermore, when you love someone, they become part of you, you feel their feelings, joys,, sorrows, etc. Love means at a minimum to derive the content of your being, from the loved object.



Empathy is superfluous? Sure, especially if you are a sociopath.

More anthropomorphology. For God, a lack of empathy is superfluous and not sociopathic, since God has perfect knowledge of us; when we engage in empathy, we attempt to simulate or model the reaction of those we love, in response to their own behaviour; God, having perfect knowledge of us, goes infinitely beyond what empathy could possibly provide. God is the "fullness of all perfections in their highest, infinte form," according to St. Basil the Great. So to the extent one can argue that empathy and compassion are virtuous manifestations of love, we can say that God according to his perfection infinitely surpasses them, and is so majestically superior to humans that He would voluntarily take our fallen nature unto himself, and endure death, in order to restore and glorify it. This is the absolutely perfect God that is alone worthy of all honour, glory and worship.

The main p[problem is that I depend on anthropomorphizing? Are you kidding? My position is that anthropomorphizing is not the problem, but the solution.

Thus, from my perspective, it is fair to regard it as the main problem with your views, in that you regard it as the solution, Orthodoxy takes a dim view of it, and your doctrines are broadly incompatible with ours. Thus, we might well leave it at that lest we descend into "Is not! Is too!" territory.

Unless a genuine likeness or analogy exists between ourselves and the rest of reality, especially god, then we haven't got an inkling what's gong on.

Indeed. And this likeness is in the incarnate person of our Lord, who assumed Humanity, and who remains a perfect Icon of the Father. This likeness is not an attribute of the invisible divine nature.

In closing, I very much urge you to review the material I suggested, because several of your points engage various Western theologies that we reject. Indeed, Process is the product of these errors, accumulated over time; it represents in my opinion a failed attempt to arrive at something like Palamism, which unlike Palamism, suffers from being essentially incompatible with older models, not to mention scripture or received tradition. So where Palamas explained with greater clarity the view of the Cappadocians, St. Athanasius, et al, Process requires one to reject that view.

 

[Hoghead1]

Process is pantheistic? Yes, it sure is. Why do you have a problem with this? Why aren't you taking the time to go through this step by step, carefully considering each process point, and then offer some sort of rebuttal? At present, my guess is that you are simply going to reinstate the classical model of God, even though process has solidly challenged the validity of this model.

You aren't interested in defending theologies you reject? Well, who is? You remark here makes no sense. I think what you are trying to say is that you are not interested in studying theologies you reject. Well then, why on earth did you say you were interested in learning something about process. And how are you going to offer suitable rebuttal to process if you don't know the territory, which I have to say is very apparent in many instances here?



I should keep my mouth shut about the errancy of Scripture because that will start a battle royal? Of course, and I'm ready. Occupational hazard.



The argument would be subjective, without the authority of Scripture? Well, of course it would be without the authority of Scripture, as that is precisely what would be in question. It would be subjective? You keep using that term, so let me ask precisely what do you mean by it. If you aren't using Scriptures as the guiding authority, certainly there are also solid other counts to try matters in. There is reason, logic. There is experience. There are any one of a number of solid philosophies to bring in, etc. Getting back to subjectivity, I see no way you can avoid being subjective. All you have to go on are your experiences. There is no way any of us can step out of ourselves, and of our subjective experiences, and examine reality. So why do you have a problem in being subjective? If you are arguing Scripture should be the ultimate authority, that is purely subjective, that is coming from your experiences, and again, you have no way of stepping out of them to judge. So why make such a big deal about subjectivity.



It's a straw-man argument that classical theism has a dualistic, world-negating view of God? Nuts. Classical theism argued God is void of body, parts, passions, compassion, immutable, without the shadow of movement, etc. That is essentially the via negative at work, the notion that what creatures have, God does not, that finite creaturely attribute cannot be ascribed by God. Hence, by its very nature the world of time, space, change, emotion, material begins is an anti-God principle.

You like trains, do you? Cool. I get to run a 116-year-old H.K. Porter 0-4-0 ST. Well, the boiler is brand new. Have you ever ridden a steam-locomotive cab? It's a really wild ride. OK, back to serious business.



One cannot say to which supposed nature something belongs? Oh, c'mon. We have been through this before. If you would take the time to read up on process, you would find a very detailed, logical account if provided as to what goes with what nature.

By my standards, I am being arbitrary because I am working from aesthetic standards. What's arbitrary abut aesthetic standards? I think they are the best to work from. my view is that classical theism used some highly questionable standards because God was depicted as the Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. I say there were arbitrary, because all classical theism did was provide God who is ruthless, overbearing, and indifferent. Now, maybe you are happy with such a God, but I'm sure not. I seek a more positive God to put my faith in. Hence, I prefer to think of God as cosmic artist luring the world to greater forms of beauty.



Compare process to the bright distinction between the humanity and the divinity of Christ. I already did. It's bright alright. It's such a sharp distinction that it makes Christ a house divided against itself. Each nature is totally opposed to the other, one calling for feeling, one rejecting all feeling. The human and the divine are light years apart. If there was a real unity between the tow, then they would merge into one another, and the divine would not be without feeling. What I like about process is that the two natures flow into one another.



I'm viewing divine love and immobility as incompatible? I've already been through this once today. It doesn't appear you got the message. So one more time. Because God is affected by creation, can change, that in no way means, as you falsely assume, that God is a big pushover, can be manipulated any way you want. There is a kind of rigid backbone to God, the primordial nature, which denotes a fixity of will and purpose on God's part. Hence, God is no pushover. However, being loving also means to change, to be deeply moved and affected by others, the CN. So God, to be loving, has love and empathy as fixed, unchangeable responses on his part. Yet God also has the capacity to change, to share in the joys and sorrows of others. So, in short, God's love demands both mutability and immutability.



You are not here to defend Protestantism? What brought that up? Of course, not. You don't really know much about it. Stay on topic. Our goal is to discuss process.

I should study all these Orthodox theologians, especially Gregory of Palamas? Look, we have already been through all this. Offhand, I don't care a hoot about them or whether you church thinks I'm a heretic or not. What should be in focus is how you see any of this material as representing a major alternative or corrective to process, other than evoking classical theism, which has already been dealt with amply by process. If you believe any of those guy are anything other than classical theists, then let's hear what you think they have to say to process.



Thus Eutychianism? Well, is that good or bad for you? What does this have to do with my criticisms>? Why do you assume that a contemporary movement such as process is in any way like that of earlier figures from a distant pre-process period.? Let's focus on today.



For God, empathy is superfluous? Sure, if you want to make God into a gigantic unloving sociopath.



God's knowledge of us doesn't require empathy and far surpasses it? Well, if God has no empathy, then God's knowledge would hardly be superior to ours, as God lacks a virtue we have. I gather you real point here is that God does not need to have any experience of us in order to know us. Did I not point out previously why I think this is not going to work. Learners need repetition, so once again, knowledge of the plan, however detailed, is no substitute for experiencing the finished product.



Orthodoxy takes a dim view of anthropomorphizing? Tell me something I didn't already know. Many people in many other fields also have trouble with anthropomorphizing. That's why I previously outlined my argument why it is not the problem, but the solution. All real knowing is analogous knowing, a point recognized by major church fathers such as Aquinas. To know, we have to generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Since what we are most familiar with is ourselves, there must be some uniformity, some likeness between ourselves and the rest of reality. Now, you don't have to agree with me if you don't to. However, that puts the burden of responsibility o n you to come up with a viable rebuttal, and not just dismiss me by simply churches have trouble with it and let it go at that.



The Incarnation is a revelation of God, but does not reveal any attributers of the divine nature? That's crazy; that means there is no revelation of the divine nature.



Process is incompatible with Scripture? Here we go again. Maybe in your interpretation of Scripture, but certainly not in ours, and I have already amply demonstrated why we take the position we do.



I should review all sorts of Orthodox material you recommend? I should especially review Gregory of Palamas? Look, we have ben through this before. I don't the time to do that and I see no apparent reason why it would contribute anything to my knowledge. If you feel there is something here that would be interesting to process, something other than standard-fare classical theism, some thinker who worked outside of classical theism, then yes, bring this up. .

 

[Wgw]

Process is pantheistic? Yes, it sure is. Why do you have a problem with this? Why aren't you taking the time to go through this step by step, carefully considering each process point, and then offer some sort of rebuttal? At present, my guess is that you are simply going to reinstate the classical model of God, even though process has solidly challenged the validity of this model.

You aren't interested in defending theologies you reject? Well, who is? You remark here makes no sense. I think what you are trying to say is that you are not interested in studying theologies you reject. Well then, why on earth did you say you were interested in learning something about process. And how are you going to offer suitable rebuttal to process if you don't know the territory, which I have to say is very apparent in many instances here?



I should keep my mouth shut about the errancy of Scripture because that will start a battle royal? Of course, and I'm ready. Occupational hazard.



The argument would be subjective, without the authority of Scripture? Well, of course it would be without the authority of Scripture, as that is precisely what would be in question. It would be subjective? You keep using that term, so let me ask precisely what do you mean by it. If you aren't using Scriptures as the guiding authority, certainly there are also solid other counts to try matters in. There is reason, logic. There is experience. There are any one of a number of solid philosophies to bring in, etc. Getting back to subjectivity, I see no way you can avoid being subjective. All you have to go on are your experiences. There is no way any of us can step out of ourselves, and of our subjective experiences, and examine reality. So why do you have a problem in being subjective? If you are arguing Scripture should be the ultimate authority, that is purely subjective, that is coming from your experiences, and again, you have no way of stepping out of them to judge. So why make such a big deal about subjectivity.



It's a straw-man argument that classical theism has a dualistic, world-negating view of God? Nuts. Classical theism argued God is void of body, parts, passions, compassion, immutable, without the shadow of movement, etc. That is essentially the via negative at work, the notion that what creatures have, God does not, that finite creaturely attribute cannot be ascribed by God. Hence, by its very nature the world of time, space, change, emotion, material begins is an anti-God principle.

You like trains, do you? Cool. I get to run a 116-year-old H.K. Porter 0-4-0 ST. Well, the boiler is brand new. Have you ever ridden a steam-locomotive cab? It's a really wild ride. OK, back to serious business.



One cannot say to which supposed nature something belongs? Oh, c'mon. We have been through this before. If you would take the time to read up on process, you would find a very detailed, logical account if provided as to what goes with what nature.

By my standards, I am being arbitrary because I am working from aesthetic standards. What's arbitrary abut aesthetic standards? I think they are the best to work from. my view is that classical theism used some highly questionable standards because God was depicted as the Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. I say there were arbitrary, because all classical theism did was provide God who is ruthless, overbearing, and indifferent. Now, maybe you are happy with such a God, but I'm sure not. I seek a more positive God to put my faith in. Hence, I prefer to think of God as cosmic artist luring the world to greater forms of beauty.



Compare process to the bright distinction between the humanity and the divinity of Christ. I already did. It's bright alright. It's such a sharp distinction that it makes Christ a house divided against itself. Each nature is totally opposed to the other, one calling for feeling, one rejecting all feeling. The human and the divine are light years apart. If there was a real unity between the tow, then they would merge into one another, and the divine would not be without feeling. What I like about process is that the two natures flow into one another.



I'm viewing divine love and immobility as incompatible? I've already been through this once today. It doesn't appear you got the message. So one more time. Because God is affected by creation, can change, that in no way means, as you falsely assume, that God is a big pushover, can be manipulated any way you want. There is a kind of rigid backbone to God, the primordial nature, which denotes a fixity of will and purpose on God's part. Hence, God is no pushover. However, being loving also means to change, to be deeply moved and affected by others, the CN. So God, to be loving, has love and empathy as fixed, unchangeable responses on his part. Yet God also has the capacity to change, to share in the joys and sorrows of others. So, in short, God's love demands both mutability and immutability.



You are not here to defend Protestantism? What brought that up? Of course, not. You don't really know much about it. Stay on topic. Our goal is to discuss process.

I should study all these Orthodox theologians, especially Gregory of Palamas? Look, we have already been through all this. Offhand, I don't care a hoot about them or whether you church thinks I'm a heretic or not. What should be in focus is how you see any of this material as representing a major alternative or corrective to process, other than evoking classical theism, which has already been dealt with amply by process. If you believe any of those guy are anything other than classical theists, then let's hear what you think they have to say to process.



Thus Eutychianism? Well, is that good or bad for you? What does this have to do with my criticisms>? Why do you assume that a contemporary movement such as process is in any way like that of earlier figures from a distant pre-process period.? Let's focus on today.



For God, empathy is superfluous? Sure, if you want to make God into a gigantic unloving sociopath.



God's knowledge of us doesn't require empathy and far surpasses it? Well, if God has no empathy, then God's knowledge would hardly be superior to ours, as God lacks a virtue we have. I gather you real point here is that God does not need to have any experience of us in order to know us. Did I not point out previously why I think this is not going to work. Learners need repetition, so once again, knowledge of the plan, however detailed, is no substitute for experiencing the finished product.



Orthodoxy takes a dim view of anthropomorphizing? Tell me something I didn't already know. Many people in many other fields also have trouble with anthropomorphizing. That's why I previously outlined my argument why it is not the problem, but the solution. All real knowing is analogous knowing, a point recognized by major church fathers such as Aquinas. To know, we have to generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Since what we are most familiar with is ourselves, there must be some uniformity, some likeness between ourselves and the rest of reality. Now, you don't have to agree with me if you don't to. However, that puts the burden of responsibility o n you to come up with a viable rebuttal, and not just dismiss me by simply churches have trouble with it and let it go at that.



The Incarnation is a revelation of God, but does not reveal any attributers of the divine nature? That's crazy; that means there is no revelation of the divine nature.



Process is incompatible with Scripture? Here we go again. Maybe in your interpretation of Scripture, but certainly not in ours, and I have already amply demonstrated why we take the position we do.



I should review all sorts of Orthodox material you recommend? I should especially review Gregory of Palamas? Look, we have ben through this before. I don't the time to do that and I see no apparent reason why it would contribute anything to my knowledge. If you feel there is something here that would be interesting to process, something other than standard-fare classical theism, some thinker who worked outside of classical theism, then yes, bring this up. .

I am not prepared to debate this with you further unless you show a willingness to engage with the Orthodox position. I am not here to defend various western theologies that I do not actually believe in. What is more, this tangent is now inceeasingly unrelated to the topic of this thread; if you want to start over on how you feel about the premise that non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural, then I will happily discuss that.

 

[Berean777]

I am not prepared to debate this with you further unless you show a willingness to engage with the Orthodox position. I am not here to defend various western theologies that I do not actually believe in. What is more, this tangent is now inceeasingly unrelated to the topic of this thread; if you want to start over on how you feel about the premise that non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural, then I will happily discuss that.

Thankyou brother in your defence of the trinity.

God bless!

 

[Berean777]

Process is pantheistic? Yes, it sure is. Why do you have a problem with this? Why aren't you taking the time to go through this step by step, carefully considering each process point, and then offer some sort of rebuttal? At present, my guess is that you are simply going to reinstate the classical model of God, even though process has solidly challenged the validity of this model.

You aren't interested in defending theologies you reject? Well, who is? You remark here makes no sense. I think what you are trying to say is that you are not interested in studying theologies you reject. Well then, why on earth did you say you were interested in learning something about process. And how are you going to offer suitable rebuttal to process if you don't know the territory, which I have to say is very apparent in many instances here?



I should keep my mouth shut about the errancy of Scripture because that will start a battle royal? Of course, and I'm ready. Occupational hazard.



The argument would be subjective, without the authority of Scripture? Well, of course it would be without the authority of Scripture, as that is precisely what would be in question. It would be subjective? You keep using that term, so let me ask precisely what do you mean by it. If you aren't using Scriptures as the guiding authority, certainly there are also solid other counts to try matters in. There is reason, logic. There is experience. There are any one of a number of solid philosophies to bring in, etc. Getting back to subjectivity, I see no way you can avoid being subjective. All you have to go on are your experiences. There is no way any of us can step out of ourselves, and of our subjective experiences, and examine reality. So why do you have a problem in being subjective? If you are arguing Scripture should be the ultimate authority, that is purely subjective, that is coming from your experiences, and again, you have no way of stepping out of them to judge. So why make such a big deal about subjectivity.



It's a straw-man argument that classical theism has a dualistic, world-negating view of God? Nuts. Classical theism argued God is void of body, parts, passions, compassion, immutable, without the shadow of movement, etc. That is essentially the via negative at work, the notion that what creatures have, God does not, that finite creaturely attribute cannot be ascribed by God. Hence, by its very nature the world of time, space, change, emotion, material begins is an anti-God principle.

You like trains, do you? Cool. I get to run a 116-year-old H.K. Porter 0-4-0 ST. Well, the boiler is brand new. Have you ever ridden a steam-locomotive cab? It's a really wild ride. OK, back to serious business.



One cannot say to which supposed nature something belongs? Oh, c'mon. We have been through this before. If you would take the time to read up on process, you would find a very detailed, logical account if provided as to what goes with what nature.

By my standards, I am being arbitrary because I am working from aesthetic standards. What's arbitrary abut aesthetic standards? I think they are the best to work from. my view is that classical theism used some highly questionable standards because God was depicted as the Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. I say there were arbitrary, because all classical theism did was provide God who is ruthless, overbearing, and indifferent. Now, maybe you are happy with such a God, but I'm sure not. I seek a more positive God to put my faith in. Hence, I prefer to think of God as cosmic artist luring the world to greater forms of beauty.



Compare process to the bright distinction between the humanity and the divinity of Christ. I already did. It's bright alright. It's such a sharp distinction that it makes Christ a house divided against itself. Each nature is totally opposed to the other, one calling for feeling, one rejecting all feeling. The human and the divine are light years apart. If there was a real unity between the tow, then they would merge into one another, and the divine would not be without feeling. What I like about process is that the two natures flow into one another.



I'm viewing divine love and immobility as incompatible? I've already been through this once today. It doesn't appear you got the message. So one more time. Because God is affected by creation, can change, that in no way means, as you falsely assume, that God is a big pushover, can be manipulated any way you want. There is a kind of rigid backbone to God, the primordial nature, which denotes a fixity of will and purpose on God's part. Hence, God is no pushover. However, being loving also means to change, to be deeply moved and affected by others, the CN. So God, to be loving, has love and empathy as fixed, unchangeable responses on his part. Yet God also has the capacity to change, to share in the joys and sorrows of others. So, in short, God's love demands both mutability and immutability.



You are not here to defend Protestantism? What brought that up? Of course, not. You don't really know much about it. Stay on topic. Our goal is to discuss process.

I should study all these Orthodox theologians, especially Gregory of Palamas? Look, we have already been through all this. Offhand, I don't care a hoot about them or whether you church thinks I'm a heretic or not. What should be in focus is how you see any of this material as representing a major alternative or corrective to process, other than evoking classical theism, which has already been dealt with amply by process. If you believe any of those guy are anything other than classical theists, then let's hear what you think they have to say to process.



Thus Eutychianism? Well, is that good or bad for you? What does this have to do with my criticisms>? Why do you assume that a contemporary movement such as process is in any way like that of earlier figures from a distant pre-process period.? Let's focus on today.



For God, empathy is superfluous? Sure, if you want to make God into a gigantic unloving sociopath.



God's knowledge of us doesn't require empathy and far surpasses it? Well, if God has no empathy, then God's knowledge would hardly be superior to ours, as God lacks a virtue we have. I gather you real point here is that God does not need to have any experience of us in order to know us. Did I not point out previously why I think this is not going to work. Learners need repetition, so once again, knowledge of the plan, however detailed, is no substitute for experiencing the finished product.



Orthodoxy takes a dim view of anthropomorphizing? Tell me something I didn't already know. Many people in many other fields also have trouble with anthropomorphizing. That's why I previously outlined my argument why it is not the problem, but the solution. All real knowing is analogous knowing, a point recognized by major church fathers such as Aquinas. To know, we have to generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Since what we are most familiar with is ourselves, there must be some uniformity, some likeness between ourselves and the rest of reality. Now, you don't have to agree with me if you don't to. However, that puts the burden of responsibility o n you to come up with a viable rebuttal, and not just dismiss me by simply churches have trouble with it and let it go at that.



The Incarnation is a revelation of God, but does not reveal any attributers of the divine nature? That's crazy; that means there is no revelation of the divine nature.



Process is incompatible with Scripture? Here we go again. Maybe in your interpretation of Scripture, but certainly not in ours, and I have already amply demonstrated why we take the position we do.



I should review all sorts of Orthodox material you recommend? I should especially review Gregory of Palamas? Look, we have ben through this before. I don't the time to do that and I see no apparent reason why it would contribute anything to my knowledge. If you feel there is something here that would be interesting to process, something other than standard-fare classical theism, some thinker who worked outside of classical theism, then yes, bring this up. .

Friend a living stone has the Living Word inside of them, they rely on scripture and also what is revealed to them by the Lord.

Some use intelligence to debate, others just know friend. I will leave it at that.

For example, I know Jesus sounds the seventh trumpet and declares time no longer, because the answer was directly given to me by a vision. Yet for an intellectual, they have to do scriptural gynmastic and even after they do all sorts of twisting and turning, they are still guesstimating at best.

Do you know for certain that God is not one infinite being, who holds three personalities?

Has Jesus revealed to you that those who hold to the trinitarian doctrine are wrong and you have been given the correct answer.

If the Lord has given you the answer that the trinitarian doctrine is wrong, then I will confess my guilt and apologise to you, for I have erred.

 

[Imagican]

Friend a living stone has the Living Word inside of them, they rely on scripture and also what is revealed to them by the Lord.

Some use intelligence to debate, others just know friend. I will leave it at that.

For example, I know Jesus sounds the seventh trumpet and declares time no longer, because the answer was directly given to me by a vision. Yet for an intellectual, they have to do scriptural gynmastic and even after they do all sorts of twisting and turning, they are still guesstimating at best.

Do you know for certain that God is not one infinite being, who holds three personalities?

Has Jesus revealed to you that those who hold to the trinitarian doctrine are wrong and you have been given the correct answer.

If the Lord has given you the answer that the trinitarian doctrine is wrong, then I will confess my guilt and apologise to you, for I have erred.

I'll bite on that one.

YES. I BELIEVE that it has been REVEALED to ME that 'trinity' is a man made doctrine that CANNOT be proven by scripture. From my perspective and what I BELIEVE to have been revealed to ME and many others, scripture destroys any possibility of 'trinity'. For if only ONE aspect of 'trinity' is found to be in error, the WHOLE concept is destroyed. I have been LED to many. Offered them on numerous occasion in discussion of the topic.

So if 'trinity' cannot be proven through scripture, scripture certainly cannot PROVE that the 'non trinitarian' belief is WRONG.

If Jesus was 'created' as in TRULY BEGOTTEN then that one TRUTH destroys 'trinity' or any semblance of 'three persons in ONE God'. If there are 'things' that one of the PERSONS knows that others don't, that DESTROYS any semblance of the possibility of 'trinity' being TRUTH. If ONE of the 'persons' contained within the idea of 'trinity' is GREATER than another then they are obviously NOT 'co equal'. The list goes on and on and on and on. I could sit here all day and offer TRUTHS of the Bible that DESTROY any possibility of 'trinity' being ANYTHING other than 'man made theology'. And I'm NOT a rocket scientist. If I were, I would, without doubt, be able to sit for DAYS and offer TRUTHS that eliminate any possibility of being revealed through SCRIPTURE. For it is NOT, as the topic of the thread INSISTS, provable through scripture. Heck, the word 'trinity' doesn't even EXIST in the Bible in ANY way, shape or form.

But we DO KNOW that there were MULTI part gods that existed BEFORE God ever introduced Himself to 'His people'. Before He EVER revealed Himself as SINGULAR, UNCOMPOUNDED, ONLY ONE, with NO OTHER 'gods' BESIDE HIM, there were groups of people that worshiped MULTI part gods. That God would reveal Himself as SINGULAR was obviously to SHOW that He was NOT like the MULTI part gods worshiped by those that DIDN'T KNOW the ONE true God. They MADE UP their OWN gods and in the process worshiped MULTI gods.

And that is exactly what 'trinity' is. Talk around the issue all one desires, in the end, one plus one plus one equals THREE. Attempting to label that which is inane or inexplicable as a MYSTERY does NOTHING but admit that one REALLY has no means of having the FIRST clue of what they are REALLY talking about. Anyone could make up ANYTHING and call it a mystery and try and use THAT as an explanation. But in TRUTH, a mystery CAN'T be explained or it would no longer BE a 'mystery'.

I hear you guys attempting to defend 'trinity' and ALL I hear is: "Well, so and so said this. And so and so said that. The COUNCIL at so and so determined this. The Council at so and so determined that". I have read and studied the Bible for over twenty years now. And try as I may, I don't find ANYTHING to back up what SO and SO said or what was determined in the Councils of MEN. I find men following OTHER MEN. And then to the extent that they accept that what those men have taught is nothing other than a mystery. Wouldn't that be like walking around in a circle trying to GET SOMEWHERE? When the only place you can truly 'get' is BACK where you STARTED from. Talking around in circles about what 'so and so' SAID.

What the Catholic Church STATES is that 'trinity' can only be recognized through 'divine revelation'. So that would be a statement that it is NOT in the Bible. For if it WAS in the Bible, then it wouldn't take divine revelation to be recognized. And it certainly wouldn't that taken hundreds of years to EVOLVE.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

And how about this to consider. Those that defend 'trinity' constantly try and describe Arius as nothing other than a 'self willed' heretic.

From what evidence that WASN'T destroyed by the Catholic Church, I have found NO such evidence. It is MY opinion from what evidence that DOES exist is that He was a FIRM BELIEVER in what he offered. As firm a BELIEVER as any of those that condemned him.

And then there's THIS: all evidence indicates that after being invited BACK to Rome, he was POISONED by the opposition. He was POISONED to death by the GOOD GUYS that you folks DEFEND as being the 'church father's that GOT IT RIGHT. I don't think that they would need to poison people, torture people, murder people if they had GOTTEN IT RIGHT. Those are the tactics of those that CAN'T get it right and instead use MIGHT as their means of forcing others to FOLLOW them.

And how about this: What is the NEED for a 'reformation'? There is an old saying, "why fix what isn't broken"? If the 'Catholic Church' had it ALL 'right', why did they NEED a 'reformation'? Obviously it was BROKEN to the point that they needed a REFORMATION. Isn't THAT evidence ENOUGH that they didn't have a CLUE? ALL those years, CENTURIES, that they had been MISLEADING the congregation and then when CAUGHT, they needed to REFORM the 'church'.

Evidence people. Not contrived to suit a GROUP that couldn't care LESS about the truth compared to their desire to CONTROL.

We see the 'church' considering natives of other countries to be no better than ANIMALS if they wouldn't swear allegiance to THEIR 'created God'. Murdered them, enslaved them, worked them to DEATH. ALL in the NAME of their 'created god': JESUS CHRIST.

Yeah, I know, good thing for me that I didn't live a few hundred years ago or I would have been labeled a HERETIC and BLASPHEMER and BURNED ALIVE, right?

But the NEAT thing is that we NOW have the ability to study history without spending our LIVES in a library, (I KNOW because when I first STARTED study the history of the Catholic Church, I HAD to go to the library and READ BOOKS to find any KNOWLEDGE). I don't MAKE UP what I state here. It is an accumulation of many YEARS of study. And I have NEVER gone LOOKING for BAD THINGS in the Catholic Church. I have NEVER studied LOOKING to find fault. The evidence is ABUNDANT and practically LIMITLESS. Just the concept of a group of men designing TORTURE devices to use against those that they CLAIM were acting or believing CONTRARY to THEIR TEACHINGS speaks VOLUMES as to 'what god' they were TRULY following. The IDEA of an 'Inquisition' used to WEED out the Devil worshipers?????? And then having to TORTURE people into confession?????? All in the NAME of Jesus Christ. Isn't that ENOUGH to plainly illustrate that since such actions are UTTERLY contrary to the TEACHINGS of Christ that they were following a DIFFERENT Christ? The Bible tells us that if we PROFESS to KNOW the love of God and hate our neighbors we are LIARS. I rest my case.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

I'll bite on that one.

YES. I BELIEVE that it has been REVEALED to ME that 'trinity' is a man made doctrine that CANNOT be proven by scripture. From my perspective and what I BELIEVE to have been revealed to ME and many others, scripture destroys any possibility of 'trinity'.

Once again, you resort to unverifiable private revelation.

For if only ONE aspect of 'trinity' is found to be in error, the WHOLE concept is destroyed. I have been LED to many. Offered them on numerous occasion in discussion of the topic.

By this same logic, if one aspecf of non-Trinitarianism were shown to be unscriptural, the whole edifice would collapse. Which it did, by the way.

So if 'trinity' cannot be proven through scripture, scripture certainly cannot PROVE that the 'non trinitarian' belief is WRONG.

Well, indeed, but his thread has proven both the Scripturality of the Trinity and the non-Scripturality of non-Trinitarianism.

If Jesus was 'created' as in TRULY BEGOTTEN

If our Lord is truly begotten, he cannot be a creature, since the act of creation precludes generation.

then that one TRUTH destroys 'trinity' or any semblance of 'three persons in ONE God'. If there are 'things' that one of the PERSONS knows that others don't, that DESTROYS any semblance of the possibility of 'trinity' being TRUTH. If ONE of the 'persons' contained within the idea of 'trinity' is GREATER than another then they are obviously NOT 'co equal'.

Once again, you resort to a strawman, claiming that we somehow reject that the Father is greater than the Son.

The list goes on and on and on and on. I could sit here all day and offer TRUTHS of the Bible that DESTROY any possibility of 'trinity' being ANYTHING other than 'man made theology'.

Thus far, after a few weeks of this thread, neither you nor any other member has been able to offer a single such "truth," despite several efforts, including efforts by very well trained members like Hoghead.

And I'm NOT a rocket scientist. If I were, I would, without doubt, be able to sit for DAYS and offer TRUTHS that eliminate any possibility of being revealed through SCRIPTURE.

Presumably, if you were, you might have something better to do than argue this point with us ad nauseum.

For it is NOT, as the topic of the thread INSISTS, provable through scripture. Heck, the word 'trinity' doesn't even EXIST in the Bible in ANY way, shape or form.

Like we haven't spent about ten pages going over that fallacious argument in exhaustive detail.

But we DO KNOW that there were MULTI part gods that existed BEFORE God ever introduced Himself to 'His people'. Before He EVER revealed Himself as SINGULAR, UNCOMPOUNDED, ONLY ONE, with NO OTHER 'gods' BESIDE HIM, there were groups of people that worshiped MULTI part gods.

The Trinitarians agree, which is why I have spent much effort attacking the theology Hoghead has described.

That God would reveal Himself as SINGULAR was obviously to SHOW that He was NOT like the MULTI part gods worshiped by those that DIDN'T KNOW the ONE true God. They MADE UP their OWN gods and in the process worshiped MULTI gods.

More strawmaneering accusing us falsely of tritheism.

And that is exactly what 'trinity' is. Talk around the issue all one desires, in the end, one plus one plus one equals THREE.

Actually, one plus one equals two. In Triadology however, the Cappadocians were hesitant to even use the word "three," in part because of the implications of "plus."

Attempting to label that which is inane or inexplicable as a MYSTERY does NOTHING but admit that one REALLY has no means of having the FIRST clue of what they are REALLY talking about.

We have neither been forced to resort to such a label, nor have we needed to, in this thread.

Anyone could make up ANYTHING and call it a mystery and try and use THAT as an explanation. But in TRUTH, a mystery CAN'T be explained or it would no longer BE a 'mystery'.

It should be mentioned in passing that you use the modern forensic sense of the word "mystery," whereas in the fourth century, the word meant something closer to "sacrament."

I hear you guys attempting to defend 'trinity' and ALL I hear is: "Well, so and so said this. And so and so said that. The COUNCIL at so and so determined this. The Council at so and so determined that".

You have also heard us repeatedly refer to John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, and numerous other pericopes you opt to gloss over or refuse to interpret literally. Indeed, your contribution to this thread has consisted, despite your criticism of us, chiefly of rhetorical arguments, groundless accusations, and unwarranted criticism. You refused to offer an exegesis of John 1:2-14, you refused to engage with the multitiude of verses in support of the divinity of our Lord and rhe holy Spirit provided by @Der Alter ; in general, your criticism has avoided dealing in scriptural terms to a marked degree.

I have read and studied the Bible for over twenty years now. And try as I may, I don't find ANYTHING to back up what SO and SO said or what was determined in the Councils of MEN. I find men following OTHER MEN. And then to the extent that they accept that what those men have taught is nothing other than a mystery. Wouldn't that be like walking around in a circle trying to GET SOMEWHERE? When the only place you can truly 'get' is BACK where you STARTED from. Talking around in circles about what 'so and so' SAID.

If anyone is talking in circles, it isn't us. You periodically, roughly every 3-4 pages of discussion, return for another attempt at using the same arguments which were previously addressed. That is surely moving in a circle; it is also disruptive to the flow of the conversation.

What the Catholic Church STATES is that 'trinity' can only be recognized through 'divine revelation'.

If, by "Catholic Church" one means an obsolte vintage 1911 encyclopedia that has no binding authority, sure. However, the Acts of the Council of Nicea, the Council of Constantinople, and several other sources which are authoritative in the RCC so provide the scriptural basis for the Trinitarian position.

So that would be a statement that it is NOT in the Bible. For if it WAS in the Bible, then it wouldn't take divine revelation to be recognized. And it certainly wouldn't that taken hundreds of years to EVOLVE.

And we have iterated over this several times as well, in this conversational Sargasso Sea. It has been shown by @Der Alter @Berean777 and others how the Trinity is scriptural, and you simply gloss over those posts, and then accuse us on the basis of an article in an encyclopedia we reject of promoting an unscriptural doctrine.

 

[Wgw]

And how about this to consider. Those that defend 'trinity' constantly try and describe Arius as nothing other than a 'self willed' heretic.

Earlier in this thread, you sought to criticize us repeatedly for citing ecumenical councils and Church Fathers, which by the way, we did not rely on to make our point. Now, you actively spring to the defence of Arius. I was under the impression you were opposed to "the teachings of MEN."

From what evidence that WASN'T destroyed by the Catholic Church,

That is to say, all of it.

I have found NO such evidence.

The you moght well take a closer look.

It is MY opinion from what evidence that DOES exist is that He was a FIRM BELIEVER in what he offered. As firm a BELIEVER as any of those that condemned him.

Given that you capitalize "He" apparently you are willing to confer on Arius a most high honour.

And then there's THIS: all evidence indicates that after being invited BACK to Rome,

He never returned to Rome! Yes, Constantinople may have been styled "New Rome," but its a far cry from the seven hills. That you would get such a basic fact wrong damages your credibility in an extreme way.

he was POISONED by the opposition. He was POISONED to death by the GOOD GUYS that you folks DEFEND as being the 'church father's that GOT IT RIGHT.

Oh, give us a break. This is simply a massive smear against Trinitarians. That Arius died of a severe colic in the lavatory of the Hagia Sophia does not mean we poisoned him! People die in washrooms every day. Indeed, statistics show that the bathroom is one of the places where people are most likely to die, especially given that severe heart attacks can create a sensation of needing to use the restroom.

I don't think that they would need to poison people, torture people, murder people if they had GOTTEN IT RIGHT. Those are the tactics of those that CAN'T get it right and instead use MIGHT as their means of forcing others to FOLLOW them.

Indeed so, which is why we reject Arianism. The Arians resorted to torture, murder and violent persecution befinning with the reign of Constantius, which continued into the reign of Theodosius. Many innocent Nicenes were killed. Still later, Arian visigoths continued plundering Christian lands for centuries. Many of them wound up converting to Islam, interestingly.

And how about this: What is the NEED for a 'reformation'? There is an old saying, "why fix what isn't broken"? If the 'Catholic Church' had it ALL 'right', why did they NEED a 'reformation'? Obviously it was BROKEN to the point that they needed a REFORMATION. Isn't THAT evidence ENOUGH that they didn't have a CLUE? ALL those years, CENTURIES, that they had been MISLEADING the congregation and then when CAUGHT, they needed to REFORM the 'church'.

There are two problems with your argument. Firstly, you conflate the reformation and counter reformation; one cannot credibly allege that Luther, Calvin, et al were RC plants or provacateurs. That would be ludicrous.

Secondly, and more importantly, the ancient churches of the East never went through a reformation. Indeed, most of the very few schisms to occur were the result of people objecting to "reforms" in the liturgy, for example, the Nikonian Byzantinization of the Old Russian liturgy or more recently, the Revised Julian Calendar. Thus, the Orthodox are not only "unreformed," but actively resist even minor change.

Evidence people. Not contrived to suit a GROUP that couldn't care LESS about the truth compared to their desire to CONTROL.

Indeed, you have offered no evidence in this post, but rather, mere insinuation, which plays neatly into the hands of controlling non-Trinitarian groups like the J/Ws. If you think the Roman church is bad, well, the RCC of today has nothing on Jehovah's Witnesses in terms of controlling its members or indeed subjugating them, using a system of shunning directly equivalent to Scientology "disconnection." The J/Ws are a coercive cult, and they benefit when well intentioned non-J/Ws like yourself rubbish the mainstream Nicene churches of Christianity.

We see the 'church' considering natives of other countries to be no better than ANIMALS if they wouldn't swear allegiance to THEIR 'created God'. Murdered them, enslaved them, worked them to DEATH. ALL in the NAME of their 'created god': JESUS CHRIST.

Syriac Orthodox St. Thomas Christians in India, and the Russian Orthodox native American known as Peter the Aleut, were among the victims of Iberian RC "missionaries," the Syriac bishop Mar Ahatullah was murdered and thrown into the sea by Jesuits. So, this argument fails entirely, because thise RCs of prior centuries who did engage in abuse did not discriminate on the basis of Nicea.

Yeah, I know, good thing for me that I didn't live a few hundred years ago or I would have been labeled a HERETIC and BLASPHEMER and BURNED ALIVE, right?

I daresay you would have been untouched by the Syriac Orthodox.

But the NEAT thing is that we NOW have the ability to study history without spending our LIVES in a library, (I KNOW because when I first STARTED study the history of the Catholic Church, I HAD to go to the library and READ BOOKS to find any KNOWLEDGE).

Poor fellow.

I don't MAKE UP what I state here.

No, but you do offer unsubstantiated allegations; you accuse the Trinitarians of murdering Arius, for example.

It is an accumulation of many YEARS of study. And I have NEVER gone LOOKING for BAD THINGS in the Catholic Church. I have NEVER studied LOOKING to find fault. The evidence is ABUNDANT and practically LIMITLESS. Just the concept of a group of men designing TORTURE devices to use against those that they CLAIM were acting or believing CONTRARY to THEIR TEACHINGS speaks VOLUMES as to 'what god' they were TRULY following. The IDEA of an 'Inquisition' used to WEED out the Devil worshipers?????? And then having to TORTURE people into confession?????? All in the NAME of Jesus Christ. Isn't that ENOUGH to plainly illustrate that since such actions are UTTERLY contrary to the TEACHINGS of Christ that they were following a DIFFERENT Christ? The Bible tells us that if we PROFESS to KNOW the love of God and hate our neighbors we are LIARS. I rest my case.

All of these criticisms apply to the Roman Catholic Church, but not to the Orthodox. We never had an inquistion or inquisitors. There was no Orthodox Torquemada. The ancient Orthodox state of Kievan Rus, in the centuries following the Baptism of the Rus under St. Vladimir, before it was conquered by the Mongolian Hordes, had no death penalty, no capital punishment. Which is alas more than can be said about most states of the time.

The very existence of the ancient churches of the East causes your argument to collapse. Indeed, your criticism of the issue is so confused, that you ignore the Arian schism in the fourth century was largely limited to the East, that the Roman bishop was not even personally present but was rather represented by legates at Nicea, and furthermore, you actually conflate Rome with Constantinople in the midst of your (to be frank) vile accusation that the Trinitarians conspired to poison Arius.

Thus, I have shown that it is not we, but you, who has refused to engage with the scriptural proofs offered by @Der Alter. Rather than discussing scriptual proof, you instead opt to "talk around" "in circles" the question, by resorting to the same rehashed arguments ad nauseum. And when that fails, you simply seek to smear us by accusing falsely the Nicene party of murdering Arius, in a city where Arius, as far as is known, never even set foot.

Unimpressive, and unconvincing. The point made in the OP stands.

 

[Imagican]

No different than the 'church fathers' that insisted that it was DIVINELY revealed to THEM. But if I make such a claim, it's INVALID? That's kind of ONE sided isn't it?

Untrue. A group of men chose to follow what they 'created'. That offers NO PROOF of anything except self will. Nothing that YOU can verify except through acceptance of THEIR choices.

And it doesn't work that way. If you propose that an IDEA can be verified and offer specific terms of it's verification, proving that the verification doesn't exist does NOT in any way shape or form offer the opposite. In other words, if something doesn't exist, there is NOTHING that can be offered to PROVE it doesn't exist. It's up to those that SAY it exist to PROVE it. You cannot UN-PROVE something.

You have proven NOTHING of the sort. ALL you've proven is that you BELIEVE what men created and named 'trinity'. NOTHING more. You certainly have offered NO scripture that TEACHES nor VERIFIES 'trinity'. You can't because it doesn't exist. You continually referred to John 1:. Even AFTER I pointed out the TRUTH and that TRUTH being that there is NO MENTION in John 1 of THREE persons in ONE God. I rest my case on that one.

So you say but the entire premise is MAN MADE. It's NOT in the Bible. Only creation as it pertains to US is ever even MENTIONED in the Bible. You don't have ANY means to know any better than myself WHAT was created BEFORE that which pertains to US. You cannot SAY with ANY sense of EVIDENCE. And ALL creatures since their creation BEGET LIKE creatures. But the SENIOR is always consider wiser and more ABLE than the younger. the only difference is that mortal creatures AGE and then DIE.

No 'straw man'. The subject is 'trinity'. And one MUST accept what was CREATED so far as the IDEA that all THREE persons are of the SAME essence. If the Father is GREATER than the Son then they are NOT equal. If not equal then not of the SAME essence. One is GREATER than the other. That means they are NOT EQUAL. It's really simple. I would think someone of YOUR intellect would recognize this without some of such lesser intellect needing to point it out. (touche').

Perhaps if YOU were as bright as you like to project yourself, instead of talking AROUND the questions, every once in a while you'd ANSWER ONE.

Ok, are you saying that you DON'T consider 'trinity' to BE a 'mystery'. See how evasive you are when offer replies. Now I ask you "IS 'trinity' a 'mystery' as defined by those that 'CREATED IT'? A simple yes or no would suffice. If that's not TOO difficult.

And ALL you've done is try to belittle everyone that disagrees with you by indicating that your intellect is what matters instead of anything else. That you are SO SMART that we should accept what you say because you KNOW everything. Which myself and others have plainly proven to be 'self deception'. You THINK, therefor in your MIND you are. But there's a whole other world outside of your mind.

You haven't even come CLOSE to proving ANYTHING that you proposed in the title of this thread. John 1 cannot be shown as PROOF of 'trinity'. The idea is RIDICULOUS. If you can SHOW 'trinity' through John 1 I challenge you to do so. Not talk around it, SHOW us that anywhere in the ENTIRE chapter of John 1 anything about 'trinity' is mentioned. And watch how QUICKLY that IDEA crumbles when you are challenged to PROVE IT. You've offered NO proof of anything other than your beliefs. You have proven that YOU believe in 'trinity'. Other than that you haven't even ATTEMPTED to offer proof of anything else.

But you've NEVER addressed the QUESTIONS except through snide and veiled dismissal. You come up with SLICK comments of NO substance whatsoever except to please your own ego. ANSWER the questions that I've posed over and over and I won't have to repeat myself.

Untrue. They SAY that the BELIEVE that the concept is 'scriptural' but openly admit that it must be DIVINELY revealed THROUGH scripture. That means that there is NO SPECIFIC scripture IN THE BIBLE that reveals 'trinity'. And I thought YOU of all people KNEW this.

Untrue. NONE of you has ONCE offered a SINGLE scripture that mentions "trinity". You have USED scripture to TRY and prove something that CANNOT be proven THROUGH scripture according to the very people that CREATED 'trinity'. So you guys must be following a DIFFERENT 'trinity' if YOU say it can be revealed through scripture. For the Catholic Church, those that CREATED 'trinity' offer plainly that it can ONLY be revealed through DIVINE revelation and even then still remains a mystery.

So you and Alter and others are trying to DO something that your own churches TELL YOU that you cannot DO. One cannot PROVE 'trinity' through scripture if it MUST be divinely revealed.

And the Catholic Church uses some 'tricky words' too. You know, like: since no one can convince THEM that scripture make 'trinity' IMPOSSIBLE, that this is a valid defense. Kind of like saying, since the Bible doesn't tell us NOT to smoke CRACK that, WHY NOT?

While you PRETEND to flip my comments away like an elephant would flip it's tail, you obviously aren't as BRIGHT as you indicate that you THINK you are. OH YEAH, you learned all the fancy words pertaining to 'man made theology'. But you blunder in an attempt to PRETEND that my words have no validity. You see, I don't NEED to use words that others need to go LOOK up in a dictionary to FOLLOW. Everyone reading what I offer UNDERSTANDS what I'm saying whether they agree with it or not.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (KJV)

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

No different than the 'church fathers' that insisted that it was DIVINELY revealed to THEM. But if I make such a claim, it's INVALID? That's kind of ONE sided isn't it?

In fact, as has bee stated repeatedly, the Trinitarian position has always been scrioturally based and scripturally expressed. It was Arius and other non-Trinitarians like Macedonius and Paul of Samosata who rejected the apostolic faith.

Untrue. A group of men chose to follow what they 'created'. That offers NO PROOF of anything except self will. Nothing that YOU can verify except through acceptance of THEIR choices.

In fact, the created doctrines are Arianism, et al.

And it doesn't work that way. If you propose that an IDEA can be verified and offer specific terms of it's verification, proving that the verification doesn't exist does NOT in any way shape or form offer the opposite. In other words, if something doesn't exist, there is NOTHING that can be offered to PROVE it doesn't exist. It's up to those that SAY it exist to PROVE it. You cannot UN-PROVE something.

Which we have done. In the course ofthis thread, wehave prven the Trinity to be scriptural, and the rejection of it to be contrary to scripture. Not that we needed to; the Nicene fathers did this in 325, and the doctrine of the Trinity is so broadly uncontroversial that it is enshrined in the Statement of Faith for this site. There is a reason why discussions of non-Nicene theology are only allowed in Controversial Theology.

You have proven NOTHING of the sort. ALL you've proven is that you BELIEVE what men created and named 'trinity'. NOTHING more. You certainly have offered NO scripture that TEACHES nor VERIFIES 'trinity'. You can't because it doesn't exist. You continually referred to John 1:. Even AFTER I pointed out the TRUTH and that TRUTH being that there is NO MENTION in John 1 of THREE persons in ONE God. I rest my case on that one.

John 1:1-14 states that Jesus Christ is God, and that by Him all things were created. Ergo, he is not a creature. Period. Capitalizing "TRUTH" does not make something truthful.

So you say but the entire premise is MAN MADE. It's NOT in the Bible.

In fact, it is; @Der Alter and others have provided ample proof of this. Both the divinity of our Lord and His unity with the Father are scriptural; so too is the divinity of the Holy Spirit and Hos unity with the Father and Son.

No 'straw man'. The subject is 'trinity'. And one MUST accept what was CREATED so far as the IDEA that all THREE persons are of the SAME essence. If the Father is GREATER than the Son then they are NOT equal. If not equal then not of the SAME essence. One is GREATER than the other. That means they are NOT EQUAL. It's really simple.

Once again, you misuse the word "essence." I am of the same essence as my parents, but they are greater than I owing to my generation. So too is it with our Lord and the Father.

I would think someone of YOUR intellect would recognize this without some of such lesser intellect needing to point it out. (touche').

If one is to use the word touché, one should learn to use it properly. There was an Apple "I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC" commercial around 2006 that demonstrates it nicely.

Perhaps if YOU were as bright as you like to project yourself, instead of talking AROUND the questions, every once in a while you'd ANSWER ONE.

Where do you claim I project myself as being "bright"? I recall making no such claims regarding my assuredly modest intellect.

Ok, are you saying that you DON'T consider 'trinity' to BE a 'mystery'. See how evasive you are when offer replies. Now I ask you "IS 'trinity' a 'mystery' as defined by those that 'CREATED IT'? A simple yes or no would suffice. If that's not TOO difficult.

According to the way mystery is used in modern society, in the sense of the sort of enimatic story favoured by Agatha Christie and other authors, no. In a sacramental, fourth century context, in the sense of referring to the sublime action pf transcendent grace upon the noetic faculty, as a divine revelation or as contact with the unsearchable essence of God, an undeniably Biblical concept, that is to say, in the sense that St. Paul says "I tell you a great mystery..."), yes.

And ALL you've done is try to belittle everyone that disagrees with you by indicating that your intellect is what matters instead of anything else.

Oh, where do you suggest I have done that? Because, in fact, I have done no such thing; I expect members to "do their homework" to use a rather tired cliche, but this does not require what you would probably call a "rocket scientist" to accomplish.

That you are SO SMART that we should accept what you say because you KNOW everything.

Not only have I not done this, I have repeatedly done the opposite, which is to stress that one should not take my word for it, or the word of my church, or indeed the word of other honourable Nicene members like my friends @Der Alter , @thecolorsblend , @Berean777 , @DrBubbaLove and so on, who deserve as much credit as I for the success of this thread; rather, we should go by what the Bible says, and the Bible plainly states that Jesus Christ is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and together with the Father they comprise one God.

Which myself and others have plainly proven to be 'self deception'.

LOL!

You THINK, therefor in your MIND you are. But there's a whole other world outside of your mind.

Indeed so, and the facts of that world dictate our belief.

You haven't even come CLOSE to proving ANYTHING that you proposed in the title of this thread. John 1 cannot be shown as PROOF of 'trinity'. The idea is RIDICULOUS. If you can SHOW 'trinity' through John 1 I challenge you to do so.

In fact, we don't need to show anything; John 1 unambiguously asserts the divinity and uncreated origin of the incarnate Word, that is to say, our Lord. There is a reason why the J/Ws felt compelled to modify John 1:1, and that is that they could not hope to prove their neo-Arian doctrine otherwise. Unitarians like Channing made a valiant effort, failed, and basically stopped trying as a denomination, instead embracing transcendentalism.

Not talk around it, SHOW us that anywhere in the ENTIRE chapter of John 1 anything about 'trinity' is mentioned. And watch how QUICKLY that IDEA crumbles when you are challenged to PROVE IT. You've offered NO proof of anything other than your beliefs. You have proven that YOU believe in 'trinity'. Other than that you haven't even ATTEMPTED to offer proof of anything else.

In fact, we have provided ample proof. John 1:1-14 proves the divinity of our Lord and rejects the Arian lie that our Lord was created; Arius tried to persuade 318 bishops otherwise and failed miserably. Thus, the J/Ws and others resort to crypto-Alogianism.

The only aspect of the Trinity that John 1 does not address is the Spirit, but that is addressed elsewhere.

But you've NEVER addressed the QUESTIONS except through snide and veiled dismissal. You come up with SLICK comments of NO substance whatsoever except to please your own ego. ANSWER the questions that I've posed over and over and I won't have to repeat myself.

In fact, we have answered all of your questions, ad nauseum. Meanwhile, you continue to prove the point of the OP by refusing to read literaly John 1:1, and by continuing to post inflammatory falsehoods about Trinitarians, and red herrings regarding Roman Catholicism; you also continue to argue against a caricature of our beliefs.

Untrue. They SAY that the BELIEVE that the concept is 'scriptural' but openly admit that it must be DIVINELY revealed THROUGH scripture. That means that there is NO SPECIFIC scripture IN THE BIBLE that reveals 'trinity'. And I thought YOU of all people KNEW this.

Once again, you refer to the same article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which as we have stressed repeatedly, is not dogmatically binding even for Roman Catholics.

Untrue. NONE of you has ONCE offered a SINGLE scripture that mentions "trinity". You have USED scripture to TRY and prove something that CANNOT be proven THROUGH scripture according to the very people that CREATED 'trinity'. So you guys must be following a DIFFERENT 'trinity' if YOU say it can be revealed through scripture. For the Catholic Church, those that CREATED 'trinity' offer plainly that it can ONLY be revealed through DIVINE revelation and even then still remains a mystery.

And you throw in the discredited ontological fallacy for good measure.

So you and Alter and others are trying to DO something that your own churches TELL YOU that you cannot DO. One cannot PROVE 'trinity' through scripture if it MUST be divinely revealed.

My church has always taught me that the doctrine of the Trinity is scriptural and can be proven scripturally. I can't speak for @Der Alter, but given the fact that baptists are much less likely to lean on tradition than the Orthodox, I would imagine he comes from a similiar background. And indeed, the RC position is also that Trinitarian doctrine can be found in scripture, an out of date encyclopedia article that predates the sinking of the Titanic not withstanding.

And the Catholic Church uses some 'tricky words' too. You know, like: since no one can convince THEM that scripture make 'trinity' IMPOSSIBLE, that this is a valid defense. Kind of like saying, since the Bible doesn't tell us NOT to smoke CRACK that, WHY NOT?

Thus, when all else fails, non-Trinitarians resort to likening us to cocaine addicts.

While you PRETEND to flip my comments away like an elephant would flip it's tail, you obviously aren't as BRIGHT as you indicate that you THINK you are. OH YEAH, you learned all the fancy words pertaining to 'man made theology'. But you blunder in an attempt to PRETEND that my words have no validity. You see, I don't NEED to use words that others need to go LOOK up in a dictionary to FOLLOW. Everyone reading what I offer UNDERSTANDS what I'm saying whether they agree with it or not.

Then, failing that, they resort to an ad hominem blended with an appeal to ignorance. And yet we are accused of "talking in circles." Alas, all of the logical fallacies in the world will not win an argument, what is more, the sort of personal in-your-face argumentation used is not likely to persuade anyone of the merits of the non-Trinitarian position.

Throughout the course of this thread, Trinitarians have been subject to much verbal abuse; we have been accused of complicity in torture, accused of conspiring to poison Arius, had our faith mocked, had our intelligence insulted; we have been described as "self deluded," "wise in our own eye," et cetera.

Thus I consider that the non-Trinitarian approach has been proven to be what I suggested in the OP: when confrotned with scripture proving the Trinitarian position, non-Trinitarians will ignore that scripture, or seek to deprecate it, and/or will aggressively attack their Trinitarian counterpart. Indeed, Arianism at its peak was enforced using the military might of the eastern Empire; it was forced on the people of Alexandria and other eastern cities; dissent was crushed. Not one person has ventured to meekly offer the idea of non-Trinitarianism as a personal belief in the manner one might associate with the generally pious Soccinians of Transylvania.

 

[Job8]

YES. I BELIEVE that it has been REVEALED to ME that 'trinity' is a man made doctrine that CANNOT be proven by scripture.

Since God does not contradict Himself, I wonder who revealed this to you? There are many lying spirits giving deceptive revelations to those who will not accept Bible truth. (Nothing personal).

 

[Imagican]

Since God does not contradict Himself, I wonder who revealed this to you? There are many lying spirits giving deceptive revelations to those who will not accept Bible truth.

Has God revealed 'trinity' to YOU?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

And if 'trinity' is 'Bible truth', SHOW IT TO US. Show us WHERE in the Bible God revealed 'trinity'. If you can't, maybe it's YOU that should question what evil spirit may have led YOU to believe what doesn't exist in the Bible?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

And if 'trinity' is 'Bible truth', SHOW IT TO US. Show us WHERE in the Bible God revealed 'trinity'. If you can't, maybe it's YOU that should question what evil spirit may have led YOU to believe what doesn't exist in the Bible?

Blessings,

MEC

John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, and a plethora of other verses provided by @Der Alter and other members.

Note by the way, in providing these verses, I am not wishing to imply that any member has been misled by an evil spirit. That would be the sort of inflammatory remark that I believe we should stay away from as much as possible.

 

[Imagican]

I find it absolutely amazing how LITTLE most KNOW about 'trinity'. They insist that it's ALL important in understanding but don't have the FIRST clue as to what it IS. Ask a HUNDRED different people to explain 'trinity' and you'll get a HUNDRED DIFFERENT replies. As if there are a HUNDRED DIFFERENT 'trinities'. Are there REALLY a HUNDRED DIFFERENT 'three part gods' out there? or a thousand. or a MILLION?

I've asked over and over to be SHOWN the scriptures that define 'trinity' and has of yet been ignored. John 1: doesn't speak ONE WORD of 'trinity'. Doesn't even MENTION the Holy Spirit. All it indicates is that the word of God, God's WORD became 'flesh'. And if we take the rest of the body of scripture into consideration, we KNOW that the Son was sent to DELIVER God's WORD. And openly admitted Himself that the words He spoke were not HIS, but GIVEN Him to deliver to us. If He WERE the Word as proposed, He could not say this. For if He WERE the Word of God, then the words He spoke WOULD HAVE BELONGED to HIM.

So I'll ask again for those that profess 'trinity', how about some scripture to back it up. Show us WHERE in scripture 'trinity' is DEFINED. Otherwise ADMIT IT: there is NO scripture that defines 'trinity'. It is a man made concept whether TRUE or FALSE. But a concept NEVER delivered or taught by the apostles or Christ Himself.

Blessings,

MEC