Trinity question

[2ducklow]

"we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person."

you say you understand this but don't explain what it means.

.Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being1 of God, shared fully and completely by three persons2, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's

You say you understand this but you haven't explained it. How is he not saying that a person is what and a who in the first statement. and how is he not saying that the trinity is a person by calling the trinity a 'what and a who". he established first that a 'what and a who' are recognised in a person that means a person is a what and a who. not just a what or not just a who. so if God is a who he is not a total person. your assertions that you understand aren't backed up with any explanation as mine were and you haven't shown how my analysis made no sense. You merely asserted that I made no sense. what did I say that made no sense? I am not saying that the trinity is a person I am saying that is what dr. whites statements indicate. how is this not true?
Seems this is a topic no one wants to touch, obviously because Dr. white is clerarly irrational here.

 

[A New Dawn]

[/i]

you say you understand this but don't explain what it means.



You say you understand this but you haven't explained it.

To be honest, 2ducklow, if you didn't understand it from Der Alter's posts, then I will not be able to explain it any better. It is because of the understanding I obtained from Der Alter's posts in the past that I can understand Dr. White's statement. I think he is an excellent teacher.

 

[Der Alte]

you say you understand this but don't explain what it means.

You say you understand this but you haven't explained it. How is he not saying that a person is what and a who in the first statement. and how is he not saying that the trinity is a person by calling the trinity a 'what and a who". he established first that a 'what and a who' are recognised in a person that means a person is a what and a who. not just a what or not just a who. so if God is a who he is not a total person. your assertions that you understand aren't backed up with any explanation as mine were and you haven't shown how my analysis made no sense. You merely asserted that I made no sense. what did I say that made no sense? I am not saying that the trinity is a person I am saying that is what dr. whites statements indicate. how is this not true? Seems this is a topic no one wants to touch, obviously because Dr. white is clerarly irrational here.

Unless you have something new, this will be my last response in this thread. I am bone tired of responding to the same thing over and over again. I took White’s definition to a disinterested party, who understood it, did not think it was contradictory, irrational, etc. Others in this thread have said they understand the definition. Therefore, I know it is understandable. The only conclusion is, you don’t understand, because you don’t want to understand.

One last time, what I posted was a “Brief DEFINITION of the Trinity,” [SIZE=+1]not[/SIZE] a scriptural proof dissertation, which I will link at the bottom. In this definition Dr. White defined his terms and used the terms in the way he defined them. White does not have to prove anything about the definition. I do not have to prove anything about this definition, although I have, in fact, explained it several times. If you have a problem with this definition then the burden of proof is entirely on you to prove it is wrong. You have not proved anything.

You did not, and to my knowledge, still do not, know or understand the definition for many words, such as “being, person, personality, and “personal.” I pointed out to you where you repeatedly mixed up different parts of different definitions. You ignored it.

White clearly said that Trinitarians do not believe, “there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person.” But because I posted the definition of “being,” which you had never seen before, and one of the minor, sub-sub-senses is “person,” you repeatedly accused White of actually, literally, saying, “three beings into one being, or three persons into one person.”

“[size=-1]How is he not saying that a person is what and a who in the first statement.[/size]” I don’t understand what you are talking about here so I can’t answer this specific question. Don’t bother now, but in the future make it clear what you are talking about by quoting exactly what someone said. I explained how to do that. [quote](quoted text)[/quote]

“[size=-1]and how is he not saying that the trinity is a person by calling the trinity a 'what and a who"..[/size]” Except for the title, White never uses the word Trinity. So White did not call “the trinity a 'what and a who.” He said, “there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's."

“[size=-1]You merely asserted that I made no sense. what did I say that made no sense? .[/size]” I repeatedly showed you how you were misquoting White, putting words in his mouth, ignoring definitions, substituting your own meanings, mixing up definitions, etc.

“[size=-1]I am not saying that the trinity is a person I am saying that is what dr. whites statements indicate. how is this not true?[/size]” Except for the title, White never uses the word Trinity, so he didn’t say the Trinity was or was not a person, that is how it is not true. The term Trinity is descriptive. It is how evangelical Christians describe the way God has revealed himself in the scriptures. We don’t worship “Trinity,” we worship God. We do not pray to “Trinity,” we pray to God. The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are shown as each having a distinct self, will, and mind, in scripture. We have one word to state what I have just written in these four sentences, Tri-unity, Trinity.

“[size=-1]Seems this is a topic no one wants to touch, obviously because Dr. white is clerarly irrational here[/size]” Do you actually, literally, believe this garbage you just posted? I have been touching this topic for over a week, blowing every argument you post out of the water, while you flail around trying to come up with an argument that makes sense. And you have not done it. Even in this post you misquote what was said, and make an outright false statement.

Dr. White's scriptural discussions of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology (15 pages)

http://aomin.org/CHALC.html

THE NATURE OF GOD - THE TRI-UNITY OF GOD (3 pages)

http://aomin.org/natureofgod.html

 

[2ducklow]

Greetings Der alter; I am sorry you wish to abandon this conversation, I have found it interesting and envigorating. Sorry if I have frustrated you. I know I'm not the smartest person around but I yam what I yam. (Popeye). Sometimes it takes a while for things to click in my brain.

A Brief Definition of the Trinity by James White





It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms “being” and “person” It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference?



We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what"1 and "who"2 when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings ---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being1 of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's

That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One

what, three who's

Dr. White begins by saying that God is not 3 beings that are one being. He says rather by his last two statements that I quoted how trinity doesn’t mean that 3 beings are into one being. These last two statements of his clarify how 3 beings aren’t into one being, according to him.



Some person (a what and a who) is both god and the three persons of god. The eternal God is the ‘what ‘portion of some unnamed person, and the three persons of god are the ‘who’ portion of some unnamed person I initially called this unnamed person he described as the trinity but I know see that would be incorrect. For this would not be a trinity but perhaps might be called a quadrinity. 4 parts to one person. (3 whos and 1 what.)





Your last post only indicates to me that you want to focus on some mistakes I might have made either real or imaginary and say I don’t understand it because of that, when here I have given

Forth a very organized examination (by dent of much analysis) of exactly what Dr. white is saying. . When I finally have dr. whites paper organized into the essence of what he is saying you abandon me.





He is saying as succinctly as I can put it, that God is not three beings that are one being but rather that God and the three persons of God make up one person. 4 parts to the whole.



It would be nice to hear your succinct description of how dr. White demonstrated that 3 beings aren’t into one being.

.

 

[2ducklow]

Unless you have something new, this will be my last response in this thread. I am bone tired of responding to the same thing over and over again. I took White’s definition to a disinterested party, who understood it, did not think it was contradictory, irrational, etc. Others in this thread have said they understand the definition. Therefore, I know it is understandable. The only conclusion is, you don’t understand, because you don’t want to understand.

One last time, what I posted was a “Brief DEFINITION of the Trinity,” [size=+1]not[/size] a scriptural proof dissertation, which I will link at the bottom. In this definition Dr. White defined his terms and used the terms in the way he defined them. White does not have to prove anything about the definition. I do not have to prove anything about this definition, although I have, in fact, explained it several times. If you have a problem with this definition then the burden of proof is entirely on you to prove it is wrong. You have not proved anything.

You did not, and to my knowledge, still do not, know or understand the definition for many words, such as “being, person, personality, and “personal.” I pointed out to you where you repeatedly mixed up different parts of different definitions. You ignored it.[2dl. not true i admidted in one of my last posts that the 1st dictionary definiton of being was 'something that exists, no life in it.{my paraphrase} If you read my explanation below of what Dr. White is saying you will see that I at least have a working knowledge of your def. and his. even if my definition is off somewhat its close enough to not effect the veracity significantly of my interpretation of his paper, and certainly therefore, not a point of any significance. )

White clearly said that Trinitarians do not believe, “there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person.” But because I posted the definition of “being,” which you had never seen before, and one of the minor, sub-sub-senses is “person,” you repeatedly accused White of actually, literally, saying, “three beings into one being, or three persons into one person.” [2dl not true, I asserted that dr white demonstrated that a person is a being but a being of a different type than a being of a rock or a cat. a person according to him is a being (existance only) that has personal attributes, or a what and a who. All of which proves that persons of god are beings which he gets around by claiming that a person of god is only the personal attributes of a person. I don't think you really understand what I am saying here as I have said the same thing in different ways several times and each time you either ignore what I've said or you dont get it.)]

“[size=-1]How is he not saying that a person is what and a who in the first statement.[/size]” I don’t understand what you are talking about here so I can’t answer this specific question. [2dl that was a conversation with Jenda i explained it fully in a previous post to her and got to the point in the second post. i also explained the same thing to you prior to that in more detail which you probably never read.)(Don’t bother now, but in the future make it clear what you are talking about by quoting exactly what someone said. I explained how to do that.

(quoted text)
“[size=-1]and how is he not saying that the trinity is a person by calling the trinity a 'what and a who"..[/size]” Except for the title, White never uses the word Trinity. So White did not call “the trinity a 'what and a who.” He said, “there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's."[2dl, I agree, he called some unnamed person 1 what (god) and 3 whos (3persons of the trinity). I realise now , didn't then, that he is maintaining that god and the three persons of the trinity make up some unnamed person, see this quote of his as to what a person is .

"That is, we recognize both "what"1 and "who"2 when we talk about a person."

he is recognizing the what and who (3 whos) when he talks about God and the 3 persons of the tinity, therefore that means some unnamed person is god (1 what) and the 3 persons of god, (3 whos).

“[size=-1]You merely asserted that I made no sense. what did I say that made no sense? .[/size]” I repeatedly showed you how you were misquoting White, putting words in his mouth, ignoring definitions, substituting your own meanings, mixing up definitions, etc

“[size=-1]I am not saying that the trinity is a person I am saying that is what dr. whites statements indicate. how is this not true?[/size]” Except for the title, White never uses the word Trinity, so he didn’t say the Trinity was or was not a person, that is how it is not true. The term Trinity is descriptive. It is how evangelical Christians describe the way God has revealed himself in the scriptures. We don’t worship “Trinity,” we worship God. We do not pray to “Trinity,” we pray to God. The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are shown as each having a distinct self, will, and mind, in scripture. We have one word to state what I have just written in these four sentences, Tri-unity, Trinity.

“[size=-1]Seems this is a topic no one wants to touch, obviously because Dr. white is clerarly irrational here[/size]” Do you actually, literally, believe this garbage you just posted? I have been touching this topic for over a week, blowing every argument you post out of the water,[2dl gee seems the other way to me] while you flail around trying to come up with an argument that makes sense.[2dl I finally understand what he is saying] And you have not done it. Even in this post you misquote what was said, and make an outright false statement.[2dl what false statement?]

Dr. White's scriptural discussions of the doctrine of the Trinity.[ 2dl. we can't even discuss 3 paragraphs of Dr. white and you want to bring in more?]

The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology (15 pages)

http://aomin.org/CHALC.html

THE NATURE OF GOD - THE TRI-UNITY OF GOD (3 pages)

http://aomin.org/natureofgod.html

I assert that I understand what Dr. White is saying as well, and I have here an explanation of my understanding, no one else has done this as yet.

In brief , JW asserts that person and being have different meanings and that he will show by that that 3 beings are one being is not the meaning of trinity. He then shows that beings are different classes , rocks,dogs and cats are in one class of being and god man and angels are in another class of beings. The rock, dog class of beings have no personal attributes and are therefore only ‘what’s. He then asserts that the class of beings that have personal attributes such as God, man and angels they are beings that are persons he calls them what and whos. Then in conclusion he maintains that the eternal god is a what only being (thereby contradicting his earlier statement that god is a being with personal attributes, a what and a who.) (and therefore in the class of rocks and cats and dogs) and the three persons of god aren’t really persons but rather personality or personal characteristics or 3 whos. Thus thereby proving that 3 beings are one being is incorrect. And that god and the three persons of god, 1 what and 3 whos make up some unnamed person.



This is an explained understanding of what Dr. White has said. I haven’t seen anyone else put together everything He has said in a unified coherent explanation. Someone said what they thought he meant but it bore no relation to anything he actually said. I mean you could say “ I understand what dr. white said, he proved that god is a trinity” but that would not explain anything he said. I don’t recall you ever stating what everything he said meant. Just the blank assertion that you understand him. And that you understand the definition of words he used.

 

[2ducklow]

Hello out there in CF land; Does anyone out there understand this paper of DR. Whites? I laboured quite exstensively to understand it and feel now I have a good understanding of what he is saying, and have been apparently abandoned just as I finally got it figured out. . Can anyone confirm or deny the basic premise he is asserting that some unnamed person is made up of God who he claims is a being like a rock or a cat and 3 personal attributes that are erroneously called person of God. Pay particular attention to these two sentences of his

That is, we recognize both "what"1 and "who"2 when we talk about a person.

So this means in order for a being to be a person it must have a what and a who correct?

." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being1 of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One

what, three who's

Notice hence, that means this is his conclusion. God is a what and therefore not a person, because a person is a what and a who. and afather son and holy ghost aren’t persons because they are only 3 whos. So we have to conclude from this that a person of god is only a personal attribute.



I seem to be talking to myself here, but I would like some input from someone as to whether there is anything wrong with this analysis

A Brief Definition of the Trinity by James White





It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms “being” and “person” It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference?



We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what"1 and "who"2 when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings ---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being1 of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's

In brief , Dr. White asserts that person and being have different meanings and that he will show by that that 3 beings are one being is not the meaning of trinity. He then shows that beings are different classes , rocks,dogs and cats are in one class of being and god man and angels are in another class of beings which are also persons. For the purpose of clairification Dr. White refers to a what as a being with not personal attributes which are rocks dogs and cats. Who’s are personal attributes.. . The rock, dog class of beings have no personal attributes and are therefore only ‘what’s. He then asserts that the class of beings that have personal attributes such as God, man and angels they are beings that are persons he calls them what and whos. Then in conclusion he maintains that the eternal god is a what only being (thereby contradicting his earlier statement that god is a being with personal attributes, a what and a who.) (and therefore in the class of rocks and cats and dogs) and the three persons of god aren’t really persons but rather personality or personal characteristics or 3 whos. Thus thereby proving that 3 beings are one being is incorrect. And that god and the three persons of god, 1 what and 3 whos make up some unnamed person.





Can anyone offer an alternate explanation of what his paper means? Or does anyone know what he means but me?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Can you point me to the post that has the link? I'll read it and attempt an understanding.

 

[2ducklow]

Can you point me to the post that has the link? I'll read it and attempt an understanding.

It is this portion with which I am concerned. It is an attempt to show that trinity does not mean 3 beings are one being, by use of a 'what' and 'who' example.

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

this was posted at

http://www.christianforums.com/t1826132-trinity-question.html&page=23



post 228.



or the web page is

http://www.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ok, I'll make an attempt.

I don't know how much of the early part of this thread you read, but I contributed there. It doesn't sound to me that Dr. White is saying much differently than I said in my attempt at explaining the trinity (for which I was upbraided by Simonline, I think.)

In my analogy, I said that the God head is a family. They are of the same nature in the same way you and I are of the same nature. We are of the nature of man. They are of the nature of God. They cooperate fully and the Spirit and Son are subordinate only by agreement for the purpose of order. Thus they are equal but two function as subordinates -- but, perhaps, only minorly so. A healthily functioning family has father and mother in near perfect agreement at all times and only agree that some one must make a decision at some critical juncture. For the Godhead, it is even more unified for they never reach "critical juncture" ... but perhaps we can still agree that perhaps some organization is required -- the Father is the head, the Son and the Spirit come after.

Comparing what I said with White, my what is the God head (the family), my whos are the the Father, Son, and Spirit.

His being is my "Godness" as over against my "humanity".

(It sounds as if his what is being and his who, personality.)

I think the complaint against my analogy is it doesn't stress the unity of the Godhead enough. However, the competing ideas sound like schizophrenia to me. And, Dr. White's analogy, so highly touted, doesn't sound so different from mine.

I think that the God-family answers well phrases like "God of very God" and "in him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead, bodily" found in much of our liturgy (the second phrase is from Colosians, IIRC). It keeps 3 distinct persons and one essense (family), IMHO, nicely.

Now as to heresy and such like, it seems to me that White aptly has Mormons, JWs, and orthodoxy as the various sides of the issue. However, humility compels me to think that no side has the advantage. (As an aside, I've neglected modalism since I really find that justifying that with scripture fits in the category colorfully called Hermeneutical Gymnastics. YMMV.)

If the Bible describes the God head as 3 distinct persons, I don't know that it is right to cast out some denomination on the basis of emphasizing this aspect over against unity.

If the Bible describe Jesus always as the Son and being obedient "even to death on the cross", why should we cast out those that emphasize the subordinate relationship over against equality.

This is similar, again IMHO, to the raging Calvinism v. Armenianism debate. The former emphasizes God's role in salvation; the latter, man's. Both are supportable.

Traditional trinitarians admirably avoid emphasizing one aspect over another. They also fail to explain just how it is all "so obvious." They assume that their imaginary polygon has a centroid on which the whole thing may be balanced.

If God has chosen to remain ineffable on this point, then it is arrogant to carve related doctrines in stone.

Well, I've gone off on a rant. I hope my family analogy helps with Dr. White's writings. I think he went a little wrong in his attempt to be clear by adding cats and rocks to the picture.

HTH

Tinker

 

[Tinker Grey]

Oh, let me add that I do indeed find, that on this topic, the Mormons, JWs, UPCS, and orthodoxy are equally arrogant.

How odd to take such definitive stands on what God is apparently determined to keep ineffable.

 

[2ducklow]

Greetings Tinker Grey;

I thank you for your response.

(It sounds as if his what is being and his who, personality.)

Partially true, His what is a type of being that he classifies as rocks, cats and dogs. His whos are personality characteristics. A what and who combination results in a type of being that is a person such as god, man or angels. So he is saying that God is a person made up of God that is a what being like a rock or a cat and personality traits that he calls a who.

Personality characteristics = person of God or the 3 whos. Rock or cat like beings = God or a what. A what + a Who = a person. A what (god) + a who (3 persons of god) = one person (God).

I think he went a little wrong in his attempt to be clear by adding cats and rocks to the picture

I think he should trash can the attempt and go back to the drawing board. He has god as a being like a rock or a cat. And at the same time he has god as a being like a person. He has a person of god as a personality characteristic, not even a person. But I do grant that he showed trinity in a way that doesn’t result in a 3 beings are one being conclusion.





As to the rest of your response which you labeled as ranting and raving (I didn’t consider it that) I would say basically the cause for much confusion in Christian doctrine as a whole over the issue of the nature of God is a result of trying to harmonize 2 opposites or contradictions. One god with Jesus is God and God the Father is God. This attempted or any attempt, even by very intelligent and learned men like Dr. White, will result in failed analogies like Dr. White’s ‘what who” analogy. You call them competing ideas; I call them opposites or contradictions.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hmm ... I thought he merely said that there are 3 persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who share 1 being (God), just like there are 6 billions persons that share 1 being humanity.

This works if by being we mean, say, essense -- that which defines what it means to belong to some class of existence.

This does not work if by being we mean entity.

If the first, perhaps the persons are too distinct to be a unity (to the critics satisfaction.)

If the second, we lose distinction in the characters and tend toward modalism.

If combined, we get, IMHO, schizophrenia.

I think Dr. White is tending to the first.

IOW, three persons combine to execute the office of "God" ... three persons who are what "Godness" is.

But as to your contradictions or my competing ideas, you are quite right that the problem comes in discussing these issues as if there were no problems or as if the human brain can comprehend or as if the human mind didn't invent this paradoxical definition to keep to Judaism's monotheism and avoid pagan polytheism and yet claim Christ as God.

Ah ... well.

Tinker

 

[2ducklow]

Hmm ... I thought he merely said that there are 3 persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who share 1 being (God), just like there are 6 billions persons that share 1 being humanity.

He did, but his ‘what who’ analogy doesn’t support that.



How does god being like a rock or cat type being (one what) and the three persons of God being personal characteristics (three whos) and not persons explain how god is revealed in three persons of god?



Dr. white defines his what who terms in these two sentences

A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc[2dl; what]. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes[ 2dl; whos] as well. That is, we recognize both "what"1 and "who"2 when we talk about a person.

…… is one eternal, infinite being of God……….one what,

shared fully and completely by three persons…….., three

who's

We have to go by Dr. whites definitions of what and who because he made it up. A what is a rock a who is personality characteristics.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Just to be clear, I was attempting to explain, not defend.

However, I think you may be misreading. I did not read that sentence as meaning that the 3 persons are personal attributes of God. Rather that person attributes are how we distinguish a person (e.g., human) from a mere it/what (e.g., cat).

That is, a "who" has personality characteristics, not is personality characteristics.

IOW, to my reading minus his obfuscation, he has merely said 3 persons (that have personality characteristics) share fully the "one eternal, infinite being of God".

That's it, AFAICT, no more. The Father, Son, and HS are persons that have characteristics that we recognize as "whos".

IOW, he is not shedding new light on the trinity by using a new analogy, but merely using new words ... that are not particularly helpful.

*shrug*

YMMV

 

[2ducklow]

That is, a "who" has personality characteristics, not is personality characteristics.

that cannot be because he stated at the beginning that 3 beings are in one being is a contradiction. If a who is a person and a person is a being and god is a being, then he has just proved what he claimed was a contradiciton is a contradiction.
I believe he was attempting something like god is the being part (1 what) in that he has existance and the personality part of god are the 3 whos. this is the only way he could explain how 3 persons of god are one god does not mean 3 beings are one being.
to prove that one has to either maintain that a person of god is not a being, or that God is not a being. In my opinion he chose persons of god as the ones who aren't beings. those are the only two options available, discounting obfuscation as an obtion.

 

[Tinker Grey]

He is specifically NOT using being as entity. He is using being as category. He is not using being to denote an singular thing; it is a class of things.

So his statement "3 persons, 1 being" does not map to "3 beings, 1 being" or "3 persons, 1 person".

He is saying, I think, that God is being like humanity is being. Father, Son, and HS are members of the class God. You and I are members of the class human.

 

[2ducklow]

He is specifically NOT using being as entity. He is using being as category. He is not using being to denote an singular thing; it is a class of things.

He says a rock is a being, is not a rock a singular thing as well as a cat or a dog or a man or an angel or God?
Within the class of beings there are rock like beings and person like beings is the meaning that I see. The classifications aren't singular but the examples are. person of god is a singular example as is God. He uses being as a classification and to refer to singular things.

So his statement "3 persons, 1 being" does not map to "3 beings, 1 being" or "3 persons, 1 person".

bold is mine 2DL

then that means a person of God is not a being because the only 3 persons we are talking about are the 3 persons of God. Which is what I claim that Dr. White is asserting. A person of God does not map to a being. It maps to a personal attribute.

He is saying, I think, that God is being like humanity is being. Father, Son, and HS are members of the class God. You and I are members of the class human

Judging by your interpretation and other peoples non interpretative "I understand it", I would say he chose the obfuscation non-option. Note your "I think".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, I'm out of explanatory power.

So, let me sum up.

I agree that his text ain't the best.

I agree that Christians have wasted a lot of breath and heat on something God has chosen to leave ineffable.

I agree, that while trinitarian myself, that it is a cobbled-together doctrine.

I agree that understanding and agreeing with standard trinitarian doctrine is not necessary for salvation.

God bless.

 

[2ducklow]

Well, I'm out of explanatory power.

So, let me sum up.

I agree that his text ain't the best.

I agree that Christians have wasted a lot of breath and heat on something God has chosen to leave ineffable.

I agree, that while trinitarian myself, that it is a cobbled-together doctrine.

I agree that understanding and agreeing with standard trinitarian doctrine is not necessary for salvation.

God bless.

I found your candor on the subject surprising for a trinitarian, and refreshing. I feel that there were certain roads you were unwilling to go down that I was trying to drag you down, but you parried against that force without resorting to personal attacks, very admirable, All to often proof is by character assignation, on both sides, of the trinity non trinity debate.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you for your kind comments.

I enjoyed our conversation.