Trinity

[Hoghead1]

Let's all avoid being personal, shall we?



Well, no.

"The Immutability of God is a necessary concomitant of His aseity. It is that perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises. In virtue of this attribute He is exalted above all becoming, and is free from all accession or diminution and from all growth or decay in His Being or perfections. His knowledge and plans, His moral principles and volitions remain forever the same. Even reason teaches us that no change is possible in God, since a change is either for better or for worse. But in God, as the absolute Perfection, improvement and deterioration are both equally impossible. This immutability of God is clearly taught in such passages of Scripture as Exodus 3:14; Psalms 102:26-28; Isaiah 41:4; Isaiah 48:12; Malachi 3:6; Romans 1:23; Hebrews 1:11-12; James 1:17. At the same time there are many passages of Scripture which seem to ascribe change to God. Did not He who dwelleth in eternity pass on to the creation of the world, become incarnate in Christ, and in the Holy Spirit take up His abode in the Church? Is He not represented as revealing and hiding Himself, as coming and going, as repenting and changing His intention, and as dealing differently with man before and after conversion? Cf. Exodus 32:10-14; Jonah 3:10; Proverbs 11:20;Proverbs 12:22; Psalms 18:26-27. The objection here implied is based to a certain extent on misunderstanding. The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God. It is even customary in theology to speak of God as actus purus, a God who is always in action. The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is change round about Him, change in the relations of men to Him, but there is no change in His Being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises. The purpose to create was eternal with Him, and there was no change in Him when this purpose was realized by a single eternal act of His will. The incarnation brought no change in the Being or perfections of God, nor in His purpose, for it was His eternal good pleasure to send the Son of His love into the world. And if Scripture speaks of His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinners when they repent, we should remember that this is only an anthropopathic way of speaking. In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man’s relations to God. It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His Being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man; over against the pantheistic notion that God is an eternal becoming rather than an absolute Being, and that the unconscious Absolute is gradually developing into conscious personality in man; and over against the present tendency of some to speak of a finite, struggling, and gradually growing God." -- L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology

As I said before, I am well aware of Berkoff and classical theism. So I think it important you read over Berkoff and note what he says about biblical passages professing change in God. As is customary in classical theism, he takes the position such statements are merely figures of speech that then do not apply to the actual nature of God. Another example here is Calvin, who in his sermons stressing God's wrath, would point out to the congregation that when the Bible speaks of God's anger, that is only a figure of speech, as God is not subject to any emotions. In process, we would argue that these passages are intended to refer to the actual nature of God. Remember, classical theism in no longer the only model of God available to Christians.

 

[Hoghead1]

ADMIN HAT ON


I really don't want to close this, but if the personal attacks do not stop, that's exactly what will happen. Stay on topic.


ADMIN HAT OFF

Good point!

 

[Hoghead1]

This one of his attempts to get a grip on substance (but not nearly his only attempt) does not entail that substances cannot have essential relational properties.

Yes, it most certainly does.

 

[Job8]

Baloney. It was people on earth who thought up the Trinity.

It is evident from this statement that you have not really studied the Scriptures regarding this matter, or you simply do not believe the Word of God. There are three THAT BEAR RECORD IN HEAVEN.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7).

And before you dismiss this verse as not being in Scripture, please do some research. The baloney is telling people that this verse does not belong in the Bible.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is evident from this statement that you have not really studied the Scriptures regarding this matter, or you simply do not believe the Word of God. There are three THAT BEAR RECORD IN HEAVEN.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7).

And before you dismiss this verse as not being in Scripture, please do some research. The baloney is telling people that this verse does not belong in the Bible.

It is evident from your statement, that you have not studied the history of teh Trinity. Trinitarian formulations are extra-biblical in nature. For example, the Nicene Creed speaks of Christ as being "of one substance" with the Father. Now "substance" is a concept from Hellenic substance metaphysics, not the Bible.

 

[Cappadocious]

Yes, it most certainly does.

How?

 

[Hoghead1]

How?

You have to ask? Because substances do not enter into one another. They are wholly independent of each other That's how.

 

[StanJ]

Again, you are posting largely a personal attack o n me, which is totally uncalled for in this forum. Yes, a change of heart definitely does mean a change in God. God has moved from feeling such-and -such a way to feeling very differently. That is an internal change. When you or I go from maybe feeling blue to feeling happy, that is a change in us. As I explained earlier, biblical passages stressing the immutability of God refer to God's fixity of purpose. And it is precisely because of that fixity, that God changes. God always seeks a good earth. At the beginning it was, and so God was pleased. But when it became corrupted, God became disgruntled and regretted creating. So God is a synthesis of both consistency and change.

You can equivocate all day long but the bottom line is the Bible says God doesn't change so you either believe that or you don't. Which is it?

 

[Cappadocious]

You have to ask? Because substances do not enter into one another. They are wholly independent of each other That's how.

How does that follow from substances not being present in a subject?

 

[StanJ]

Psalm 105:27
"But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end."

 

[Hoghead1]

You can equivocate all day long but the bottom line is the Bible says God doesn't change so you either believe that or you don't. Which is it?

The Bible also quotes God as saying, "A change of heart moves me." So the Bible is saying God is immutable in some respects, mutable in others. I explained all this to you before. When you make the claim that the Bible says God doesn't change, you are largely going on classical theism, which argued God is void of all emotion, even compassion. Hence, the Bible is presenting mere figures of speech when it attributes changing emotion to God, as in the case of Hosea 11:8. I am saying that quarrel if you must with the anthropomorphic imagery of Scripture as a mere concession to our intellects, still, at a minimum, these mean God is subject to changing affective states analogous to pleasure and displeasure, in ourselves.

 

[Hoghead1]

How does that follow from substances not being present in a subject?

Oh, c'mon. You should be able to figure that out for yourself.

 

[Hoghead1]

Psalm 105:27
"But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end."

Yes, we all do stay the same in many ways. I've been a lifelong train buff and I will continue to be. However, we also change. Now that I can operate a real steam locomotive, I'm a much different train buff that I was years ago.

 

[Cappadocious]

Oh, c'mon. You should be able to figure that out for yourself.

If you want to put one the metaphysics hat, you have to be able to argue and explain your conclusions. We are getting at that, here. So, why?

 

[Hoghead1]

If you want to put one the metaphysics hat, you have to be able to argue and explain your conclusions. We are getting at that, here. So, why?

Look, I went through all the before with you. Apparently you didn't listen then and so I doubt if you will listen now.

 

[StanJ]

The Bible also quotes God as saying, "A change of heart moves me." So the Bible is saying God is immutable in some respects, mutable in others. I explained all this to you before. When you make the claim that the Bible says God doesn't change, you are largely going on classical theism, which argued God is void of all emotion, even compassion. Hence, the Bible is presenting mere figures of speech when it attributes changing emotion to God, as in the case of Hosea 11:8. I am saying that quarrel if you must with the anthropomorphic imagery of Scripture as a mere concession to our intellects, still, at a minimum, these mean God is subject to changing affective states analogous to pleasure and displeasure, in ourselves.

If you're talking about 2nd Chronicles 6 yes if they change their heart and they repent of their sins God will forgive them. That's not God changing that's God as he always has been merciful and willing to forgive if we repent. I have no idea how you see that as God changing.
In any event I noticed you're being deliberately vague now so it's not really a matter of you trying to prove your doctoral thesis otherwise you would simply quote from it. I know for sure any valid doctoral thesis that the exegesis would be contained therein to support this opinion.
You may have thought you explained it but you basically just inserted it and really didn't offer any explanation per se. Now you may think that you have fooled some people and maybe you have but you haven't fooled me and you haven't convinced me and that is your responsibility to do so if you're going to I search things that are outside of Christian Orthodoxy. Even the example you supply from Hosea 11:8 is misinterpreted because the Hebrew word hâphak means to return to a previously held position. Which means that God is no longer against them for their idolatry but because of their repentance has turned back towards them. God is NOT subject to anyone or anything or any situation.
The NIV's rendering of Jonah 3:10 captures the thought perfectly: "He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened." God does not change His mind; He simply has compassion. (http://www.compellingtruth.org/does-God-change-His-mind.html)

 

[StanJ]

Look, I went through all the before with you. Apparently you didn't listen then and so I doubt if you will listen now.

Based on the fact that you've made the same statements to me and have not gone through anything I have to seriously doubt this statement is true as well. If this is so, point us to where you actually went through all this.

 

[StanJ]

Yes, we all do stay the same in many ways. I've been a lifelong train buff and I will continue to be. However, we also change. Now that I can operate a real steam locomotive, I'm a much different train buff that I was years ago.

This is speaking about God, and the fact that you equivocate about this is very telling.

 

[Job8]

It is evident from your statement, that you have not studied the history of teh Trinity. Trinitarian formulations are extra-biblical in nature. For example, the Nicene Creed speaks of Christ as being "of one substance" with the Father. Now "substance" is a concept from Hellenic substance metaphysics, not the Bible.

Actually I have studied the history of the Trinity as related to the Nicene Creed. Those who formulated that creed simply tried to put into words what is implied in Scripture. You don't have to accept their words, but they could have used the term "essence" or "divinity" or "Godhood", or some other term instead of "substance" and it would have made no difference. The bottom line is the answer to these questions:

1. Is the Father God? Absolutely.
2. Is the Son God? Absolutely.
3. Is the Holy Spirit God? Absolutely.

Since mere mortals cannot possible comprehend the Godhead, using terms like "substance" or "essence" are mere approximations.

 

[Radagast]

Actually I have studied the history of the Trinity as related to the Nicene Creed. Those who formulated that creed simply tried to put into words what is implied in Scripture.

And for a different set of words, see the Athanasian Creed. Here most of the stated propositions do not use the word "substance."