Trinity=Monotheism?

[NYCGuy]

Can someone please explain how saying that there are three distinct Persons (who are not each other) that are one in being/substance/essence/nature/etc and are one God is just as monotheistic as saying that there is only one Person that is God.

 

[elopez]

Can someone please explain how saying that there are three distinct Persons (who are not each other) that are one in being/substance/essence/nature/etc and are one God is just as monotheistic as saying that there is only one Person that is God.

It's a rather easy going explanation. Three persons in one God. Monotheism is the belief in one God. Even if you disregard the two other persons as God and just one, the other two are the same as the one you would regard as God.

Now, could you explain how three persons as one God is not monotheistic?

 

[NYCGuy]

It's a rather easy going explanation. Three persons in one God. Monotheism is the belief in one God. Even if you disregard the two other persons as God and just one, the other two are the same as the one you would regard as God.

That sounds more like modalism and not Trinitarianism. What do you mean by "the other two are the same as the one you would regard as God"? What do you mean by "the same"? Trinitarians believe that it was the Son that incarnated on the earth, and not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. The Father is said to be unbegotten while the Son is eternally begotten. The Spirit proceeds while the Father does not proceed. Etc. Clearly they are not interchangeable (using Catholics as an example, they have a paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that states something like "the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son").

Now, could you explain how three persons as one God is not monotheistic?

Because you have three distinct divine Persons, who are not each other. It seems to me that most Trinitarians say that it is monotheistic because...it just is (i.e. b/c we say that they are "one God"). I don't see how one can say that saying that there are three distinct divine Persons who are one in essence/being/substance is just as monotheistic as saying that there is only one Person who is God.

 

[elopez]

That sounds more like modalism and not Trinitarianism. What do you mean by "the other two are the same as the one you would regard as God"? What do you mean by "the same"? Trinitarians believe that it was the Son that incarnated on the earth, and not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. The Father is said to be unbegotten while the Son is eternally begotten. The Spirit proceeds while the Father does not proceed. Etc. Clearly they are not interchangeable (using Catholics as an example, they have a paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that states something like "the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son").

You are aware that Modalism claims God is one person who has revealed Himself in three forms or modes, which is in contrast to what I said of God which was there exists three persons in one God. So I do not think it sounds anything like Modalism but the exact opposite. By "same" I mean each person of the Trinity has the same attributes, will, nature, essence, etc. Each person is co - equal and co - eternal. The only difference in the persons of the Trinity is in their job, as the Father was not incarnated and the Spirit not crucified, etc. So yes, that means that the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.

Because you have three distinct divine Persons, who are not each other. It seems to me that most Trinitarians say that it is monotheistic because...it just is (i.e. b/c we say that they are "one God"). I don't see how one can say that saying that there are three distinct divine Persons who are one in essence/being/substance is just as monotheistic as saying that there is only one Person who is God.

So explain how the persons not being each other means that they are not the same one God? Again they are not each other in the respect that they have different roles; they are the same in nature, attributes, essence, and so on. If each person has the same attribute as the one God, that is, if each person has no beginning and has no end as God, each is the same one God as He is eternal.

 

[KrimsonDraegon]

It's a rather easy going explanation. Three persons in one God. Monotheism is the belief in one God. Even if you disregard the two other persons as God and just one, the other two are the same as the one you would regard as God.

Now, could you explain how three persons as one God is not monotheistic?

Peace upon you,

In the same manner that three clones are not the same person; rather, they are representatives of the same person.

According to the strict definition of "mono-", meaning "one", the Trinity is polytheism. However, Christianity defines the Trinity as a Holy Mystery. The most common apologetic one sees is "One with a finite mind is attempting to comprehend an infinite, Supreme Reality." In other words; it is pointless to attempt to explain that unexplainable. There are those who accept that the Trinity is representative of One and there are those who cannot accept that "tri-" equals "mono-".

Most respectfully,
S.

 

[NYCGuy]

You are aware that Modalism claims God is one person who has revealed Himself in three forms or modes, which is in contrast to what I said of God which was there exists three persons in one God. So I do not think it sounds anything like Modalism but the exact opposite.

It sounded like modalism to me because you seemed to imply that the Persons are interchangeable, which of course Trinitarians would deny.

By "same" I mean each person of the Trinity has the same attributes, will, nature, essence, etc.

What does it mean to have the same "essence"? What is "essence" referring to?

I do not see how having the same attributes, will and nature makes three distinct Persons "one God" and is monotheistic. Perhaps that will be solved when we find out what "essence" means?

Each person is co - equal and co - eternal. The only difference in the persons of the Trinity is in their job, as the Father was not incarnated and the Spirit not crucified, etc. So yes, that means that the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.

But the difference between the Persons isn't just in their job. It is also in their origination. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father (and/through the Son, depending on your faith community). The Father is unbegotten and doesn't proceed.

So explain how the persons not being each other means that they are not the same one God? Again they are not each other in the respect that they have different roles; they are the same in nature, attributes, essence, and so on. If each person has the same attribute as the one God, that is, if each person has no beginning and has no end as God, each is the same one God as He is eternal.

You seem to be making a distinction between the Persons and the "one God", as if the "one God" is an entity in and of itself that is separate from the Persons, who happen to posses the attributes of that entity. If you have three distinct Persons who have the same properties, nature, etc., yet are different in their roles as well as their origination (see above), how is that monotheism if you still have three distinct divine Persons? This really seems to be no different than polytheism.

I still do not see a coherent argument as to why someone should entertain the idea that Trinitarianism is just as monotheistic as the "true" monotheistic faiths, such as Judaism and Islam.

 

[elopez]

In the same manner that three clones are not the same person; rather, they are representatives of the same person.

You are mistaken if you think I believe or have claimed the Trinity means the three persons are the same person. I have said that the three persons are the same one God. Christ is not the Father is not the Holy Spirit. Each has a distinct role that separates them in that respect.

According to the strict definition of "mono-", meaning "one", the Trinity is polytheism. However, Christianity defines the Trinity as a Holy Mystery. The most common apologetic one sees is "One with a finite mind is attempting to comprehend an infinite, Supreme Reality." In other words; it is pointless to attempt to explain that unexplainable. There are those who accept that the Trinity is representative of One and there are those who cannot accept that "tri-" equals "mono-".

I would ask you to define polytheism them and connect how the Trinity implies such a belief. The Trinity does not represent anything close to polytheism, as the gods are usually bickering and fighting. Though with the Trinity all three persons have the same will and nature, so they want to accomplish the same purpose which is salvation.

Christianity actually defines the Trinity as three persons existing as one God, and is still monotheistic.

 

[NYCGuy]

I would ask you to define polytheism them and connect how the Trinity implies such a belief. The Trinity does not represent anything close to polytheism, as the gods are usually bickering and fighting.

But "bickering and fighting" is not part of the definition of polytheism.

Though with the Trinity all three persons have the same will and nature, so they want to accomplish the same purpose which is salvation.

Yet that does not make them monotheistic. This is an artificial distinction.

Also, having the same nature doesn't mean monotheism. I have the same human nature as you, but we are not "one human". Similarly, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost having the same divine nature does not make them "one God" or monotheistic.

Christianity actually defines the Trinity as three persons existing as one God, and is still monotheistic.

But it hasn't been demonstrated how this is done. The minute you put plurality within God, there is no longer monotheism. It is very simple, in my opinion.

 

[KrimsonDraegon]

You are mistaken if you think I believe or have claimed the Trinity means the three persons are the same person. I have said that the three persons are the same one God. Christ is not the Father is not the Holy Spirit. Each has a distinct role that separates them in that respect.

Precisely, thank you for elucidating upon my own point.

I would ask you to define polytheism them and connect how the Trinity implies such a belief. The Trinity does not represent anything close to polytheism, as the gods are usually bickering and fighting. Though with the Trinity all three persons have the same will and nature, so they want to accomplish the same purpose which is salvation.

And some fruits are not sweet, such as jalapenos; however, this does not mean they are not fruits.

Christianity actually defines the Trinity as three persons existing as one God, and is still monotheistic.

Yes it does, which is both respectable and commendable, but does not mean it is right.

Peace upon you respected brother,

You are taking my post as an attack upon Christianity when it truly is not intended to be. I was merely illustrating a point: some people can accept that a Trinity represents a monotheism and some cannot.

With peace,
S.

 

[elopez]

It sounded like modalism to me because you seemed to imply that the Persons are interchangeable, which of course Trinitarians would deny.

And where did I imply that? Again Modalism is the belief that there is one person as God revealed in three forms. I've said that the one solitary God exists as three persons, which is Trinitarianism and again the complete opposite of Modalism.

What does it mean to have the same "essence"? What is "essence" referring to?

By essence I will here refer to the attributes that make a being what it is and that which it posses necessarily. God is necessarily eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, sovereign, etc. By "same" I again mean each person is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.

I do not see how having the same attributes, will and nature makes three distinct Persons "one God" and is monotheistic. Perhaps that will be solved when we find out what "essence" means?

Well the three persons having the same attributes, nature, and will makes each person fully the one God and thus monotheistic.

But the difference between the Persons isn't just in their job. It is also in their origination. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father (and/through the Son, depending on your faith community). The Father is unbegotten and doesn't proceed.

There is no difference in the persons origination. The Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, or from the Father (to me I don't see the relevance of picking between either or). Begotten here doesn't mean "made," as in Christ was created and thus a different origin of God the Father, rather begotten here means of the same substance, so Christ is the same substance of the Father which is spirit. Since this is so the Son co - existed with Father, which means eternally, which therefore means there is no difference in origin to the two persons existence. The Spirit proceeding eternally still means that the Spirit had no origin of existence and is eternal just as the Father and the Son.

You seem to be making a distinction between the Persons and the "one God", as if the "one God" is an entity in and of itself that is separate from the Persons, who happen to posses the attributes of that entity. If you have three distinct Persons who have the same properties, nature, etc., yet are different in their roles as well as their origination (see above), how is that monotheism if you still have three distinct divine Persons? This really seems to be no different than polytheism.

The only distinction I am attempting to make is that of the persons roles and jobs. The Father creates and establishes laws, the Son was incarnated and crucified, and the Spirit interacts with man matters of salvation. Each other person does not do the others job, so each person is not the same person. There is no distinction between the persons and God because again each person is fully God and God each person. The Son is God and God is the Son. The Son posses the same attributes as God. There is no difference in the persons origin as they were each uncreated and will always exist.

Polytheism states that the multiple gods argue and fight with each other, whereas the person of the Trinity are not separate gods but the same God as each person is in accordance with each others nature and will. Each person works together to accomplish the same goal -- salvation.

I still do not see a coherent argument as to why someone should entertain the idea that Trinitarianism is just as monotheistic as the "true" monotheistic faiths, such as Judaism and Islam.

And I still see no coherent argument as to why the Trinity isn't monotheistic. I also see the no true scottsman fallacy as to what you may say monotheism is.

 

[elopez]

Peace upon you respected brother,

You are taking my post as an attack upon Christianity when it truly is not intended to be. I was merely illustrating a point: some people can accept that a Trinity represents a monotheism and some cannot.

With peace,
S.

If your point is that the persons of the Trinity are separate in respect to their roles, then that is the whole point I've been making as well. Really then, you have advanced no further point beyond that. And your statement about fruits I see no relevance of.

Also, I took this as no attack of any sort. I was simply responding to your post. And if you are here pointing out that the Trinity can represent monotheism, I agree.

 

[elopez]

But "bickering and fighting" is not part of the definition of polytheism.

I haven't even defined polytheism, just stated that the gods of polytheism fight because they are not in accordance with each others will.

Yet that does not make them monotheistic. This is an artificial distinction.

Also, having the same nature doesn't mean monotheism. I have the same human nature as you, but we are not "one human". Similarly, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost having the same divine nature does not make them "one God" or monotheistic.

It is the only distinction to be made to differentiate polytheism and Trinitarianism.

And no, you do not have the same exact human nature as me. You know nothing about me nor I of you but I can assure you that we are different in many, many respects. We both just have human nature, not the same nature as each other. Your analogy there is the only thing artificial.

But it hasn't been demonstrated how this is done. The minute you put plurality within God, there is no longer monotheism. It is very simple, in my opinion.

I haven't put a plurality on God. I've been saying one God in three persons, not three gods in one God or something nonsensical like that.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Trinitarianism posits that there exists one God. That's monotheism. If someone wants to redefine monotheism to exclude certain views about God that is their right, but no one is required to subscribe to such a redefinition.

Insofar as monotheism says that only one God exists, Trinitarianism is monotheistic. There is one God; one unitary, indivisible, inseparable essence, ousia, substance, being, is-ness that is God. We don't divide God, we don't separate or partition God, God is one. One, absolutely and without division of any kind. The Three Hypostases or "Persons" are that one God, not parts or divisions of God, but wholly in their unique Hypostasis, in their respective and fundamental reality of What and Who each really and truly is. When we say the Father is God, we are not saying He is part of God, a third of God, a division within God; the Father is God in totality, the fullness of Deity, the entire reality of God is His Being, His essence, His nature, His ousia, what He eternally and unequivocally is. And the same goes for the Son and the Holy Spirit. Anything that we can say about the Father's being can be said in full of His Son and of the Holly Spirit; all that of what the Father is, the Son also is. If the Father is the entirety and totality of God, the Son likewise is the entirety and totality of God. This does not mean the Son is the Father, but rather the Father and Son are the same What, they are One existence, one Being; the Son being heir and participant in the wholeness and fullness of the Father's own indivisible, ineffable, and eternal Divine Life and Being.

It may be more complicated than some unitarian theologies about the nature of God, but again, apart from redefining monotheism to exclude unitarian views of God Trinitarianism is monotheism and there's really no way around that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NYCGuy]

And where did I imply that? Again Modalism is the belief that there is one person as God revealed in three forms. I've said that the one solitary God exists as three persons, which is Trinitarianism and again the complete opposite of Modalism.

You implied that when you said " Even if you disregard the two other persons as God and just one, the other two are the same as the one you would regard as God." This seems to imply that the three are interchangeable.

By essence I will here refer to the attributes that make a being what it is and that which it posses necessarily. God is necessarily eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, sovereign, etc. By "same" I again mean each person is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.

So "essence" seems to be interchangeable with "nature", so wouldn't it be redundant to refer to both essence and nature?

Also, I fail to see how being of the same "essence" means monotheism. If I have three distinct Persons that are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc., who have the same properties, except one is unbegotten and doesn't proceed (the Father), one is eternally begotten (the Son), and one eternally proceeds (the Spirit), then clearly there are differences in the alleged "sameness" apart from their jobs, and that there is a clear distinction between the Persons in origination, therefore this leans more towards polytheism, in my opinion. I have not seen the issue of origination addressed (see below).

Well the three persons having the same attributes, nature, and will makes each person fully the one God and thus monotheistic.

There is no difference in the persons origination. The Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, or from the Father (to me I don't see the relevance of picking between either or).

I guess those in the Orthodox Church would see the relevance, since it's more of an issue for them, however that's for another thread .

Begotten here doesn't mean "made," as in Christ was created and thus a different origin of God the Father, rather begotten here means of the same substance, so Christ is the same substance of the Father which is spirit. Since this is so the Son co - existed with Father, which means eternally, which therefore means there is no difference in origin to the two persons existence. The Spirit proceeding eternally still means that the Spirit had no origin of existence and is eternal just as the Father and the Son.


The only distinction I am attempting to make is that of the persons roles and jobs. The Father creates and establishes laws, the Son was incarnated and crucified, and the Spirit interacts with man matters of salvation. Each other person does not do the others job, so each person is not the same person. There is no distinction between the persons and God because again each person is fully God and God each person. The Son is God and God is the Son. The Son posses the same attributes as God. There is no difference in the persons origin as they were each uncreated and will always exist.

This seems to be saying that there are differences in their origination but there really aren't, at the same time. Again, it is stated that the Father is unbegotten and does not proceed. The Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is not begotten but eternally proceeds. If those statements don't actually point to a reality and don't mean anything, then why say them if not to make clear statements about differences in origination? My acknowledging these differences does not mean that I'm saying that the Son had a beginning, for example, but that in that eternal existence, the ECFs decided that there is a difference in eternal origination between the Persons.

Polytheism states that the multiple gods argue and fight with each other,

I've never seen a definition of polytheism that "states that the multiple gods argue and fight with each other". That is an artificial distinction between polytheism and the Trinity.

whereas the person of the Trinity are not separate gods but the same God as each person is in accordance with each others nature and will. Each person works together to accomplish the same goal -- salvation.

I think I've gone over this already.

And I still see no coherent argument as to why the Trinity isn't monotheistic. I also see the no true scottsman fallacy as to what you may say monotheism is.

It's quite simple. The Trinity is not monotheistic because it acknowledges the existence of three distinct divine Persons who are not each other and who have differences in origination (as stated by Trinitarians themselves, as far as being begotten and proceeding, whether or not that is an eternal origination). This points to a difference between the Persons besides just their roles/jobs.

 

[NYCGuy]

I haven't even defined polytheism, just stated that the gods of polytheism fight because they are not in accordance with each others will.

In your post to me before this, you said that "Polytheism states that the multiple gods argue and fight with each other". In actuality, this is not something that polytheism states. It may be a characteristic of some polytheistic religions, however it is not a defining characteristic of all polytheism. A clear example of this is Mormonism. Mormons state that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods, and are accused of polytheism by Trinitarian Christians. However, Mormonism can't be polytheistic because they state that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are united in will and purpose, and they don't fight and argue. From this we further see that having three Persons united in will and purpose does not make monotheism, unless we're now saying that Mormonism is a monotheistic faith.

It is the only distinction to be made to differentiate polytheism and Trinitarianism.

And no, you do not have the same exact human nature as me. You know nothing about me nor I of you but I can assure you that we are different in many, many respects. We both just have human nature, not the same nature as each other. Your analogy there is the only thing artificial.

You just said we both have human nature but not the same nature? What does that mean? We both have the same nature that makes us humans and not rats or dogs. It is said that the Son is not only consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit, but consubstantial with us through His incarnation. Therefore, how could Jesus be consubstantial with all of us through His incarnation if we are not consubstantial with each other, meaning that we have the same human nature? This is a usage that I've seen multiple Trinitarian authors use. Your argument does not work in this case.

I haven't put a plurality on God. I've been saying one God in three persons, not three gods in one God or something nonsensical like that.

Um...saying that three distinct Persons are one God is putting a plurality on God. A Jew would say that there is only one Person that is God. This shows the plurality difference between the two.

 

[Mark_Sam]

It's quite simple. The Trinity is not monotheistic because it acknowledges the existence of three distinct divine Persons who are not each other and who have differences in origination (as stated by Trinitarians themselves, as far as being begotten and proceeding, whether or not that is an eternal origination). This points to a difference between the Persons besides just their roles/jobs.

But you miss the entire point here; there is ONE God in THREE Persons.

Or to put it another way; God is one being, one essence, which exists in three ways, or has three existences. One essence in three existences. One substance in three persons.

The Trinity is monotheistic because it acknowledges the existence of three distinct divine Persons in one God.

Read the Athanasian Creed to get a correct understanding of the Trinity:

"[...] And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. [...] The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal. [...] So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God. [...] For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords. [...] And in Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. [...]"

My pastor always said that if one can fully understand God, then He is not God, but only a greater version of Man. We cannot (and never will) fully understand God, but we ought to understand Him as it is shown in the Athanasian Creed and the Nicene Creed, which summarises the teachings revealed in the Scriptures.

 

[elopez]

You implied that when you said " Even if you disregard the two other persons as God and just one, the other two are the same as the one you would regard as God." This seems to imply that the three are interchangeable.

I don't even know what you mean by interchangeable, that is rather unclear.

So "essence" seems to be interchangeable with "nature", so wouldn't it be redundant to refer to both essence and nature?

You mean synonymous? Yes. Maybe, but that is a pretty irrelevant objection. You've asked for a definition of essence and I gave it.

Also, I fail to see how being of the same "essence" means monotheism. If I have three distinct Persons that are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc., who have the same properties, except one is unbegotten and doesn't proceed (the Father), one is eternally begotten (the Son), and one eternally proceeds (the Spirit), then clearly there are differences in the alleged "sameness" apart from their jobs, and that there is a clear distinction between the Persons in origination, therefore this leans more towards polytheism, in my opinion. I have not seen the issue of origination addressed (see below).

I've already explained how it is monotheism as the three persons have the same essence. As I've defined essence each person is equally omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on. God, as in the one solitary God is of that essence, so each person has the same essence as the one God. Each person is the one God.

The problem with your argument is that you do not further explain the difference in origination. Again, the Son is eternal just as the Father, begotten also in the sense that Christ was born and became man though still eternal in essence. The Spirit eternally proceeds, meaning that the Spirit is eternal just as the Father and Son, and all three co - existed eternally. Therefore each person of the Trinity had no origin to their existence and will have no end. God is eternal, and God is one. So each person is the one eternal God.

This seems to be saying that there are differences in their origination but there really aren't, at the same time. Again, it is stated that the Father is unbegotten and does not proceed. The Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is not begotten but eternally proceeds. If those statements don't actually point to a reality and don't mean anything, then why say them if not to make clear statements about differences in origination? My acknowledging these differences does not mean that I'm saying that the Son had a beginning, for example, but that in that eternal existence, the ECFs decided that there is a difference in eternal origination between the Persons.

Well that's not what I said. I said the only difference is in their jobs, and their origins are the same. Christ being incarnate is not the Son originating in existence, it is fulfilling his job. Though the Son is still eternal. The statement isn't meant nor does it even point our any difference in the persons origin.

"Eternal origination" doesn't even make sense. Eternal has no beginning, so there can be nothing as to originate from eternity.

I've never seen a definition of polytheism that "states that the multiple gods argue and fight with each other". That is an artificial distinction between polytheism and the Trinity.

Then you are obviously not aware of the polytheistic religions that adhere to gods that fight. I think you perhaps want to ignore this point. You are the one that stated the Trinity is polytheistic. This is only one distinction between the two.

It's quite simple. The Trinity is not monotheistic because it acknowledges the existence of three distinct divine Persons who are not each other and who have differences in origination (as stated by Trinitarians themselves, as far as being begotten and proceeding, whether or not that is an eternal origination). This points to a difference between the Persons besides just their roles/jobs.

How do you define monotheism? The point is Trinitarianism adheres to one God. That is monotheism. You cannot redefine what monotheism is just because you disagree with what the Trinity suggests. Again your point about the persons being different in origination is vague, so as of now I do not understand that as a reason for the Trinity not being monotheistic.

 

[elopez]

In your post to me before this, you said that "Polytheism states that the multiple gods argue and fight with each other". In actuality, this is not something that polytheism states. It may be a characteristic of some polytheistic religions, however it is not a defining characteristic of all polytheism. A clear example of this is Mormonism. Mormons state that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods, and are accused of polytheism by Trinitarian Christians. However, Mormonism can't be polytheistic because they state that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are united in will and purpose, and they don't fight and argue. From this we further see that having three Persons united in will and purpose does not make monotheism, unless we're now saying that Mormonism is a monotheistic faith.

I don't even know why you are off assuming all polytheism would even state that. I've never said what was a defining characteristic of polytheism, I have explained one portrayal according to that religion. That is more than you could say as you haven done nothing than type it. Multiple gods is polytheism. Even if they did have they same will and purpose, long as it is stated there exists three gods it is polytheism, unless of course you are going to redefine polytheism, too.

Essence is not the only thing I mentioned that makes each person the same one God. Will, substance. Let me ask you this: what do you think a 'person' must consist of to constitute as God?

You just said we both have human nature but not the same nature? What does that mean? We both have the same nature that makes us humans and not rats or dogs. It is said that the Son is not only consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit, but consubstantial with us through His incarnation. Therefore, how could Jesus be consubstantial with all of us through His incarnation if we are not consubstantial with each other, meaning that we have the same human nature? This is a usage that I've seen multiple Trinitarian authors use. Your argument does not work in this case.

I mean we both have a thing called human nature, but we differ in that nature. For example we both think differently, but the ability to think is part of human nature which we both share. Unless we think the same, which I doubt, we do not have the same human nature.

Um...saying that three distinct Persons are one God is putting a plurality on God. A Jew would say that there is only one Person that is God. This shows the plurality difference between the two.

Man, you just want to redefine all sorts of words, don't you? So now how would you define "plurality"? As in quantity plural means a value of more than one. So a plurality of gods would be saying, "there exists three distinct gods." That is not what I'm saying or what the Trinity suggests. One God, not more than one God. This is the artificial difference.

 

[markedward]

May I ask a question?

The phrase "one God in three persons" has the ring of "God" being an office or position that is simultaneously held by three distinct individuals. The fact that they are in "agreement" with one another does not somehow mean they are together a singular being.

To involve terms like "hypostasis" or "essence" or "substance" in defining who and what God is, is to descend from Biblical theology into philosophical speculation. It doesn't do any good to say that "God" is "three persons of the same essence and substance" if the Bible doesn't project or define such language for us. Especially when, in the end, such language doesn't clarify anything about who/what God is. The use of such language as "God is three persons of the same essence and substance" and still be taken to mean that "God" is not a person, but an office or position held simultaneously by three persons.

If Greg, John and Alan have individual thoughts, wills, plans, if they exist as distinct persons capable of distinct voluntary actions, then using the logic-driven mental faculties God has blessed us to use, it makes no sense to claim that they are all three a single being just because they operate in complete agreement with each other.

So my question is... Is it even possible to define "the trinity" using only Biblical language (Biblical agreement), and in such a way that we can understand it as not being self-contradictory (logical agreement)?

 

[Ormly]

"The phrase "one God in three persons" has the ring of "God" being an office or position that is simultaneously held by three distinct individuals. The fact that they are in "agreement" with one another does not somehow mean they are together a singular being."

But that is what makes their "Being" so unique. They are so in One accord a distinction cannot be made between them. The beautiful thing is that this is the same relationship intended for man to be included as well, as demonstrated in the humanity of Jesus Christ. Read John 17.