Trinity

[StanJ]

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.

He says this to all the trinitarians. Apparently he doesn't believe or accept a lot of the things that the Bible says including 2 Timothy 2:14

 

[Hoghead1]

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)

Now wait a sec. You're confused about things here. So let me try and straighten things out. Berkoff is a traditionalist and a classical theist. Some critics call his approach paleo-Calvinsm. Classical theism, the traditional Christian description of God, came largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. Translated into teh Christian doctrine of God, this meant God was described as void of body, parts , passions, compassion, wholly immutable. Aristotle's Unmoved Mover was baptized Christian. Hence, classical theism is actually about as pagan as you can get. Obviously then, classical theists faced a real challenge when th3ey came to biblical passages, such as Hosea 11:8, that attribute changing emotions to God. Their solution was to argue such passages were only mere figures of speech that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual nature of God. Calvin, for example, called such passages "baby talk." In his sermon delivered on Tuesday, June 25, 1549, on Jer. 15, he stated to the congregation, "Our Lord, nevertheless, did everything to correct his people as a father would his child. Seeing that He could not succeed in converting people to the path of righteousness, He laments, 'Alas, am I not unhappy? I have done al I can to make men righteous. Yet I have not succeeded.' It was not that Our Lord was subject to emotion, but that he wished to speak in a way fitting to our nature." For further information here, see my translation titled "Sermons on Jeremiah, by Jean Calvin," Edwin Mellen Press, 1990, p. 37. I and other process people take a different approach. We argue the Bible meant business with these anthropomorphic metaphors, intended them to be taken as a true analogy to the real nature of God. As I said in a previous post, you can quarrel all you with the anthropomorphic imagery of Scripture as a mere concession to our feeble intellects; still, at a minimum, these mean God is subject to changing affective states, analogous to pain and pleasure, in ourselves.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

Look, you have butted into a conversation I am having with someone else. OK with me. However, I went through this with him probably about a month ago. I'm not about to repeat myself here.

 

[Hoghead1]

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

No, I'm trying to give you a down-to-earth example of what I am talking about when I say God is a synthesis of consistency and change.

 

[Radagast]

Berkoff is a traditionalist and a classical theist.

I prefer the term "orthodox Christian." And you're not answering the response that the quoted passage gives to your point of view. You're dismissing it without actually interacting with it.

Also, passages like Numbers 23:19 make clear that God is not "subject to changing affective states, analogous to pain and pleasure, in ourselves."

But I think this conversation is pointless; you will continue to believe what you believe, and I will continue to believe orthodox Christianity.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

Yes, it would very much have made a difference. 'Substance" here means a wholly immutable, simple, nonrelational being. So the fathers first defined God as a monad. Then tried to introduce the highly complex relational machinery of teh Trinity into this monad. The result was contradiction and confusion.

 

[Hoghead1]

I prefer the term "orthodox Christian." And you're not answering the response that the quoted passage gives to your point of view. You're dismissing it without actually interacting with it.

Also, passages like Numbers 23:19 make clear that God is not "subject to changing affective states, analogous to pain and pleasure, in ourselves."

But I think this conversation is pointless; you will continue to believe what you believe, and I will continue to believe orthodox Christianity.

Yes, but about 100 other passages do speak of God as experiencing changing emotion, such as Hosea 11:8. Have you considered those?

 

[Hoghead1]

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

Yes, but Athanasius viewed God as a substance.

 

[Hoghead1]

He says this to all the trinitarians. Apparently he doesn't believe or accept a lot of the things that the Bible says including 2 Timothy 2:14

It's not a question of teh Bible per se here. The Trinitarian formulations are largely extra-biblical in nature. There is no doubt about that. For example, where in Scripture do you find Augustine's psychological model of the Trinity?

 

[Cappadocious]

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

To say that a substance cannot be present in a subject is mere negation. You must establish a positive account.

What is not said of a subject is a particular, is it not?

 

[Hoghead1]

To say that a substance cannot be present in a subject is mere negation. You must establish a positive account.

What is not said of a subject is a particular, is it not?

I don't see what any of this has to do with my previous posts.

 

[StanJ]

Now wait a sec. You're confused about things here. So let me try and straighten things out. Berkoff is a traditionalist and a classical theist. Some critics call his approach paleo-Calvinsm. Classical theism, the traditional Christian description of God, came largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. Translated into teh Christian doctrine of God, this meant God was described as void of body, parts , passions, compassion, wholly immutable. Aristotle's Unmoved Mover was baptized Christian. Hence, classical theism is actually about as pagan as you can get. Obviously then, classical theists faced a real challenge when th3ey came to biblical passages, such as Hosea 11:8, that attribute changing emotions to God. Their solution was to argue such passages were only mere figures of speech that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual nature of God. Calvin, for example, called such passages "baby talk." In his sermon delivered on Tuesday, June 25, 1549, on Jer. 15, he stated to the congregation, "Our Lord, nevertheless, did everything to correct his people as a father would his child. Seeing that He could not succeed in converting people to the path of righteousness, He laments, 'Alas, am I not unhappy? I have done al I can to make men righteous. Yet I have not succeeded.' It was not that Our Lord was subject to emotion, but that he wished to speak in a way fitting to our nature." For further information here, see my translation titled "Sermons on Jeremiah, by Jean Calvin," Edwin Mellen Press, 1990, p. 37. I and other process people take a different approach. We argue the Bible meant business with these anthropomorphic metaphors, intended them to be taken as a true analogy to the real nature of God. As I said in a previous post, you can quarrel all you with the anthropomorphic imagery of Scripture as a mere concession to our feeble intellects; still, at a minimum, these mean God is subject to changing affective states, analogous to pain and pleasure, in ourselves.

Actually I'm not confused about a thing but it appears you are if you think that I really care about the opinions of any of the people you mentioned in this post. You may want to clear up your own confusion in that regard . If you personally cannot address me as you, then I have to wonder why you went through all that trouble to get your purported doctorate? Not only are we feeble in both mind and body, as well as flawed and undecided, we are also passible, God is none of these. It sounds to me like you're looking for your 'self' in God, and 'you' won't find Him there.
One day you will find out who does and doesn't change, and sadly when you do, you will be very very disappointed.

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually I'm not confused about a thing but it appears you are if you think that I really care about the opinions of any of the people you mentioned in this post. You may want to clear up your own confusion in that regard . If you personally cannot address me as you, then I have to wonder why you went through all that trouble to get your purported doctorate? Not only are we feeble in both mind and body, as well as flawed and undecided, we are also passible, God is none of these. It sounds to me like you're looking for your 'self' in God, and 'you' won't find Him there.
One day you will find out who does and doesn't change, and sadly when you do, you will be very very disappointed.

Look, again, you post is nothing but a crude personal attack on me and a no-no in any serious theological discussion. I also advise you to carefully read the Bible, before commenting. You are overlooking many passages where the Bible does clearly attribute changing emotion to God.

 

[StanJ]

Look, again, you post is nothing but a crude personal attack on me and a no-no in any serious theological discussion. I also advise you to carefully read the Bible, before commenting. You are overlooking many passages where the Bible does clearly attribute changing emotion to God.

Someone's cognitive dissonance is rearing its ugly head. Better try to get that Beast under control.

 

[Hoghead1]

Someone's cognitive dissonance is rearing its ugly head. Better try to get that Beast under control.

Better try to do a better job of studying Scripture and theology.

 

[Cappadocious]

I don't see what any of this has to do with my previous posts.

We are trying to get something positive out of your quote regarding a substance not being present in a subject.

 

[Job8]

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

Right. The word "divinity" is used.

But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.

Quibbling over these words does not change the fact that the triune Godhead is (1) a reality and (2) ultimately incomprehensible, therefore to be accepted by faith. Those who reject the Trinity and the Deity of Christ cannot consider themselves as Christians, since those are the foundations of our faith.

 

[Hoghead1]

We are trying to get something positive out of your quote regarding a substance not being present in a subject.

Look, I went through all this before with you. I am not going through it again.

 

[Cappadocious]

Look, I went through all this before with you. I am not going through it again.

But you'll go after these guys, huh?

 

[Hoghead1]

But you'll go after these guys, huh?

You have a problem with that?