RE: The Trinity Doctrine: Help me out, Christians
February 3, 2018 at 6:13 am
(This post was last modified: February 3, 2018 at 6:34 am by GrandizerII.)
(February 2, 2018 at 5:00 pm)SteveII Wrote: This might be your problem. They are different persons who have actions/duties ascribed to them that are not the same as the actions/duties ascribed to the other members of the Godhead.
Yes, and that is where the real distinction lies. Not in being or essence of nature.
I shouldn't have to keep quoting the Catechism here for you not to lose track, but here goes:
255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91
Quote:In one way--that the all are one essence (God). In the personhood question, they are not ontologically the same.
They are distinct, but NOT separate. If you believe in three separate Persons, then that is Tritheism, not Trinitarianism. The Mormons would love to have you among them, if that's the case.
Quote:Ah, you might have seen the term "Jesus is fully God" and that is true. His divinity is the essence he shares (inseparably) with the other persons of the Godhead. The inverse is not true: that God is Jesus--because that would be incomplete. God is the three all together.
"Jesus is fully God" is not equivalent to "Jesus is fully divine", it is equivalent to "Jesus is the one and only God in its entirety". The word "God" doesnt refer to an attribute.
I am fully human, and so are you. And in this sense, we both share the same nature. But in our case, there can be multiple human beings we can refer to. So you are one human being and I am another.
This cannot be the case for the monotheistic God. Jesus (or the Son) isn't just sharing the same divine nature as the other Persons of God. He is sharing the same essence (BEING). They indwell one another. They "occupy" the same "space". The distinction, once again, has nothing to do with the nature or substance of God. God is One (according to the doctrine), not THREE.
Quote:Yea, the links you posted go on and on about one God in essence consisting of three persons. When discussing one of those persons, you will be discussing part of the Godhead.
Steve, don't you think that if this were the case, the official texts would just say that instead of being all vague about it. Personhood, in the context of the Trinity, does NOT imply part.
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85
If this is a little ambiguous to understand, here's a Christian who will explain this to you:
Quote:Thus, the Son is not one-third of the being of God; he is all of the being of God. The Father is not one-third of the being of God; he is all of the being of God. And likewise with the Holy Spirit. Thus, as Wayne Grudem writes, “When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone” (Ibid., 252).
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/wha...he-trinity
Quote:Your key phrase "...each one being fully the one God" makes no sense. You actually worded a logical contradiction into it to make it sound so and claimed this is mainstream belief on the Trinity.
No, Steve, what you're defending might be logical (tritheism), but Trinitarianism is not. That's why when you saw that phrase, even you realize that doesn't sound right. I didn't force that into the doctrine. That's mainstream Christianity for you. "Jesus is fully God" means: "Jesus is that ONE God".
(February 3, 2018 at 2:21 am)Godscreated Wrote: You were arguing God wasn't triune and that He was triune and I showed that God has always been triune in my post.
"God has always been triune" is what you assert without proof or demonstration, but seriously, what the fuck does this have to do with whether or not the Trinity is illogical? If I tell you that a "square circle" is illogical, do you respond by saying "well, the square circle has always been a square circle"?
Quote:You posted it that way and you were arguing it that way, so the best I can tell is that you intentionally meant that each one is a separate God and that is not true, by nature being triune eliminates the possibility of each being a God.
On the contrary, when you're the one arguing that the Persons of God are separate from each other, then it is you who is arguing for three Gods.
Quote:Yes and I would think that my previous post established that fact. You can't minimize God nor the three Persons who are God, He is the almighty and no matter what we say or do will minimize God in any way.
If you say that Jesus is just a part of God, then you are guilty of minimizing him in your conception.
Quote:Separate - Each is an individual. Analogy, a sound system has a receiver, a amplifier, and speakers three parts combined into one system to make music. They are three divine individuals with the same nature and that is unchanging. I made this clear in my previous post. The truine God is inseparable by necessity meaning they are like minded and have the same nature yet they are three separate persons. If they were inseparable then the salvation of man kind as it is describe in the Bible would not have been possible. They are as I have said inseparable in nature and mind.
Your analogy would not be suitable for the doctrine of the Trinity. The Persons of God do not share the divinity of God among themselves. They are each God in its entirety. In your analogy, is the receiver the whole system? Is the amplifier the whole system? Are the speakers the whole system?
If you don't want to come off as a Tritheist, don't say Jesus is a part of God.
Quote:How is it that you can't understand who the Trinity is and what I believe the Trinity to be. I explained this very clearly and yet you think I was speaking of God as a family, when I stated that God is three persons in one with like mindedness and one true nature. They are one God not a family. A family is made up of any number of people of three or more and being human they would never be of the same nature nor like minded. This is why I said the family is to operate like the triune God, so there would always be order to the decision making process of the family.
If you believe that God is the set of all the Persons of God, and each Person of God is just an element of God, then yes, in this case, God refers just to the family of these divine beings (in your belief). If you don't like that, you're free to adjust your beliefs to match what the official texts on the Trinity say.
Quote:I notice you completely ignored the Genesis reference where God does state He is of more than one person. You also ignored that when the word LORD is in all caps that the Trinity is being referred to, why?
Because it has shit all to do with my argument?
