Board index ‹ God

[Shema]

> Then you are mistaken, my good sir or madam.

Sir. And no, I'm definitely not mistaken. And that's also why you unintentionally admit polytheism and contradict yourselves when you forget to guard your tongues, and don't don't follow the necessary semantic detours. Like calling God a he.

> If God is not the triune Lord revealed in Jesus Christ, then the doctrine of creation is rendered impossible, and man is part of a cosmic chain of being.

Jesus revealed no such thing. If he did, he would per definition be a false prophet. But he didn't.

> This is because a monadic conception of God as some kind of singularity leaves us with the emptiness and void of non-personality as ultimate reality. If there is no plurality within God’s being, then there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, but instead only a blank unity. In such a view of God there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Indeed, without an absolute personality, there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all; ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said.

Monotheistic, not monadic. And one personal God can never be non-personal. And the trinity doesn't have an absolute personality, it has three, four if we're following proper orthodoxy. And this sounds like you're paraphrasing your typical, meaningless Ravi Zacharias sophistry. It was actually from Dr. Joe Boot of the Ezra Institute.

I only asked which "he" you're referring to? There are three "he"'in the trinity, so which of the three did you have in mind? God the father?
Or God the holy spirit? Or God the son maybe? Who's the he?

[jimwalton]

> I'm definitely not mistaken. And that's also why you unintentionally admit polytheism and contradict yourselves when you forget to guard your tongues, and don't don't follow the necessary semantic detours.

Then you misunderstand trinitarian theology. We can discuss it if you want.

> Like calling God a he.

I call God a "he" for several reasons: (1) God is a person with personality, not a force or an "it." In English we have no other choices. (2) Though God does not have gender, the Bible consistently refers to him as "he." I follow a biblical model. (3) There are other reasons to consider God a "he" rather than a "she", the primary one being that it eliminates the confusion of making God's acts sexual as were often the case in the ancient world. But there's more. We can talk about it if you want.

> Jesus revealed no such thing. If he did, he would per definition be a false prophet. But he didn't.

Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God. He was the agent of creation and will be the heir of all creation in the eschaton (Ps. 2.8). He is the visible manifestation of the Father's Shekinah glory and the exact representation of His being. Jewish authors often said that divine Wisdom was the exact “image” of God, the prototypical stamp by which he “imprinted” the seal of his image on the rest of creation (the way an image was stamped on coins.). Psalm 2.

> And one personal God can never be non-personal.

But if God is solely singular, as Boot writes, there is no subject-object relationship and therefore He is non-personal.

> And the trinity doesn't have an absolute personality, it has three, four if we're following proper orthodoxy.

Do you have an explanation of this? Just stating it doesn't carry weight.

> I only asked which "he" you're referring to? There are three "he"'in the trinity, so which of the three did you have in mind?

In this case, the "he" is the one God. All three Persons of the Trinity are the divine essence involved in the program of covenant, revelation, and relationship.

[Shema]

> Then you misunderstand trinitarian theology. We can discuss it if you want.

Not at all, I'm very well-versed in trinitarian theology. We can definitely discuss it if you want.

> call God a "he" for several reasons: (1) God is a person with personality, not a force or an "it." In English we have no other choices. (2) Though God does not have gender, the Bible consistently refers to him as "he." I follow a biblical model. (3) There are other reasons to consider God a "he" rather than a "she", the primary one being that it eliminates the confusion of making God's acts sexual as were often the case in the ancient world. But there's more. We can talk about it if you want.

I didn't object to the gender as you well know. There are three "he" in the trinity, not one. Like I said, trinitarians always contradict themselved and their own doctrine when they aren't cautious.

> In this case, the "he" is the one God. All three Persons of the Trinity are the divine essence involved in the program of covenant, revelation, and relationship.

There isn't a one God in the trinity, and there isn't a one overarching "he" either, that's modalism.

[jimwalton]

If you're well-versed and well-studied in Trinitarian theology, you probably don't need to or want to discuss it, but if you do wish that, we can discuss it. It seems apparent that you think trinitarianism is polytheistic, but if you're well-studied in it, you know how trinitarianism differs from polytheism in that the Trinity is one essence whereas polytheistic deities are multiple essences. We can talk about if you want, but possibly you feel that your research is sufficient. As you wish. Reply with your subject or question if you want, or start a new thread and let others kibitz on it.