The Baptism of Jesus - Trinity or Tritheism?

[kwag_myers]

Questions for you:

(A) Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Who cares? I don't. I'm only interested in what He can do and has done for me. What purpose does this rock thing serve?

(B) Can God sin?

He cannot even look at sin. What does that have to do with being limited by human logic?

(C) Can God create a square circle?

See my answer for (A).

And obviously, you can't try and limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible.

So you disagree with the statement that you posted...

You are aware that theologians (generally) limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible?

The question remains unanswered; how can an omnipotent, that is all powerful God be limited by human logic (and why do I feel like I'm addressing a Vulcan)?
The answer according to the Bible is "no".

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Hallelujah #angel ...now we're getting somewhere.

So a violation of what we (here in the "natural realm") understand to be logical would still represent a violation of logic in the "spiritual realm"? And, conversely, what we would term illogical and inconsistent (such as preposing that something or someone "is AND isn't") would also be illogical and inconsistent in that spiritual realm?

[quote:00f10]What a totally ridiculous response. Because human logic operates the same way in each realm does not mean the properties of existence in each realm must be the same. I'll give you an example. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are contradictiory. To resolve the contradiction, scientists have theorized String Theory. String Theory indicates there are 11 dimensions and also parallel universes, each of which can have completely different properties of existence. The problem scientists have with Sting Theory is not that it is illogical. Mathmatical equations are consistent with the theory indicating its logic. The problem is there is no way to test the theory in a laboratory. No one says, "don't bother to find a way to test it, as it indicates the properties of existence in parallel univeses can be different, so it isn't possible, because that's not logical." It is logical.

To say as you do, that because the supernatural realm is different than the natural realm, it is illogical, is a completely bogus argument

[/quote:00f10]

No - it can be different and still logical. For instance, that God is eternal, never having had a beginning, is certainly "different" to us who are not eternal. We cannot comprehend never having had a beginning, but it ISN'T ILLOGICAL, because you can form a logical argument contending that SOMETHING had to have been eternal, that is, there always had to be someone or something there. But to say that God is eternal yet NOT eternal, is illogical, and no matter how "different" this other dimension is, that kind of logic wouldn't surpass ours, it falls short of ours, because it does not represent a greater or different logic, it is OUR ILLOGIC.

You have already agreed, per your example of winged sheep, that to prepose that something is, and yet isn't, is illogical, PERIOD. So why, if you agree, I assume, that God cannot be God and not God, that God cannot be eternal and not eternal, or that God cannot be both "love" and "hate", that God CAN be one and yet three, three and yet one? "One", and any other number other than one, are mutually exclusive amounts. They are OPPOSITES, just like the preceeding list of opposites in my examples.

And furthermore, if God's dimension is so different conceptually, from ours, then when the bible so emphatically states that there is only "one God" and/or "God is one", how do we know it doesn't really intend that there are 3 Gods? If one can be three in this other realm, what is the significance TO US, that there is ONLY "one God"? What would "one God" mean?

 

[DivineNames]

In the first place, how does your assertion that theologicans limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible relate to the issue that the properties of existence in the supernatural realm can be different without being illogical??

"Human reason demands by definition that one is one, and three is three, but just as one is never three, three can never be one. However, it is possible for God to transcend human experience and logic even in regard to the most basic observations on material reality. Although no one even can imagine how one can be three, the limits of the human mind should not be a basis for denying what is possible. And, God does not want to be known by imagination, or by a guess at what three in one can mean, but only by the way Scripture presents his being as a Trinity."



Because they tend to stick to "human reason".

They would not go along with something like-

"Its not a contradiction in the supernatural world... the supernatural world has different properties..."

 

[DivineNames]

He cannot even look at sin. What does that have to do with being limited by human logic?

What did you say?

"Omni means all. How can all be limited?"

All Powerful.

And now you are saying that there is at least one thing he can't do. And you didn't answer two of my questions.

For God to be limited to what is "logically possible", I don't think this means that God is limited "by human logic".

 

[kwag_myers]

What did you say?

"Omni means all. How can all be limited?"

All Powerful.

And now you are saying that there is at least one thing he can't do.

What does His power have to do with whether He can look at sin or not? You're comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing His will and nature to His unlimited power. I have the power to do many things that I choose not to do.

And you didn't answer two of my questions.

No, I didn't. Jesus did. He's quoted in Matthew 19:26 as saying that what we humans think is impossible is quite possible for God.

If God creates a rock and gives the rock a free will, then the rock rejects God as its creator and rejects Jesus as its Savior, then God will not move that rock.

If it is necessary for God to create a square circle, then He certainly can. How? I don't know, I'm not God. I just know that He is a lot smarter than you give Him credit for.

For God to be limited to what is "logically possible", I don't think this means that God is limited "by human logic".

You mean like making the sun stand still? Causing a donkey to speak like a man? Causing the Red Sea to part? Stuff like that? You didn't read 2 Timothy 3:2-7, did you? Or maybe you just don't see how that applies to your statements.

 

[DivineNames]

What does His power have to do with whether He can look at sin or not? You're comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing His will and nature to His unlimited power. I have the power to do many things that I choose not to do.

Fair enough. You are saying that God could sin, but he isn't the kind of 'person' that would sin.

He's quoted in Matthew 19:26 as saying that what we humans think is impossible is quite possible for God.

If God creates a rock and gives the rock a free will, then the rock rejects God as its creator and rejects Jesus as its Savior, then God will not move that rock.

If it is necessary for God to create a square circle, then He certainly can. How? I don't know, I'm not God. I just know that He is a lot smarter than you give Him credit for.

You mention free will, and I think that is a good example-

Can God create a world in which people genuinely have free will, and where (paradoxically) those people are also prevented by God from ever committing sin?

The "free-will defence" against evil depends upon God's omnipotence being limited to what is logically possible.

Perhaps you could say that God could easily have prevented moral evil, but he isn't the kind of 'person' who would?

In which case, we could well question the ethics and character of God.

 

[DivineNames]

Because they tend to stick to "human reason".

They would not go along with something like-

"Its not a contradiction in the supernatural world... the supernatural world has different properties..."

For example-

"that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: "No word shall be impossible with God." For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing."

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/102503.htm

 

[MPaul]

"The paradox of omnipotence presents the theist with the question “Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?â€Â

I've answered you raising this issue more than once. Each time, you ignore my answer and post it again. If you feel that accomplishes something--fine.

On this last point you are replying to the wrong person. I wrote that. NOT Brad. Doesn't give me that much confidence that you get the gist of what is being said...

And Brad commented on it, and I commented in return. You're just presenting bogus ways to find problems with my answers.

What on earth are you talking about??
I don't believe that anyone would seriously think that Brad was trying to "answer anything" in that particular quote.
And did you get confused again about who wrote the post?

Oh, so what you perceive as having to be assumed about a post means that I'm confused. Another bogus way of presenting that my answers have problems. However, what does the total lack of substance to your answers mean??

A) If the "properties of existence" in the supernatural world can allow God to be "three and one", then is it possible that the "properties of existence" in the supernatural could perhaps also allow God to be morally perfect AND a liar?

If not, then why?

I've stated my position on this type question from you more than once. And, you just keep ignoring it and repeating the quesiton. It's a bogus way of responding.

I don't remember saying that you couldn't believe in a supernatural world. Not even in "essence".

You said I have no business saying that God is a tri-unity. I quoted you in my last post on it. Scripture represents God in the supernatural as a tri-unity. So, I guess you mean I can believe in the supernatural world of Scripture but I have no business doing so. But, you know, that's not real conversation. So, what are we doing now.

MPaul wrote:

In the first place, how does your assertion that theologicans limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible relate to the issue that the properties of existence in the supernatural realm can be different without being illogical??

"Human reason demands by definition that one is one, and three is three, but just as one is never three, three can never be one. However, it is possible for God to transcend human experience and logic even in regard to the most basic observations on material reality. Although no one even can imagine how one can be three, the limits of the human mind should not be a basis for denying what is possible. And, God does not want to be known by imagination, or by a guess at what three in one can mean, but only by the way Scripture presents his being as a Trinity."

Because they tend to stick to "human reason".

They would not go along with something like-

"Its not a contradiction in the supernatural world... the supernatural world has different properties..."

In the above quoted message, you quote a post by me, then a part of my article on the Trinity, without noting its source, and then make some kind of comment, that says who knows what.

OK.

Regards,

Paul

 

[MPaul]

No - it can be different and still logical. For instance, that God is eternal, never having had a beginning, is certainly "different" to us who are not eternal. We cannot comprehend never having had a beginning, but it ISN'T ILLOGICAL, because you can form a logical argument contending that SOMETHING had to have been eternal, that is, there always had to be someone or something there. But to say that God is eternal yet NOT eternal, is illogical, and no matter how "different" this other dimension is, that kind of logic wouldn't surpass ours, it falls short of ours, because it does not represent a greater or different logic, it is OUR ILLOGIC.

I never said that something could not be illogical in the supernatural world because it is different. I said, that because some things are different does not mean they are illogical. I also said we only know as much about the supernatural as is represented by Scripture. What isn't explained in Scripture isn't known. Suppositional questions for the sake of creating the possibility of the supernatural world of the Bible being a contradiction are meaningless. They just indicate that we do not have all knowledge concerning the supernatural. Scripture only presents as much as we need for a relationship to God and to know how the supernatural affects our natural life. In that sense it is like the natural world--there is more we don't know than we know, and much of nature is a mytery. But that does not mean the natural world is a contradiction or an impossibility. And it doesn't mean the supernatural world is an impossibility as it is represented in Scripture.

You have already agreed, per your example of winged sheep, that to prepose that something is, and yet isn't, is illogical, PERIOD. So why, if you agree, I assume, that God cannot be God and not God, that God cannot be eternal and not eternal, or that God cannot be both "love" and "hate", that God CAN be one and yet three, three and yet one? "One", and any other number other than one, are mutually exclusive amounts. They are OPPOSITES, just like the preceeding list of opposites in my examples.

The winged sheep was you example. And, I said that statements are illogical if a thing is represented to be true, and then represented not to be true. As far as the complete attributes of God--that falls into the unknown, what has not been explained by Scripture. However, the way that the concepts of one and three exist in the natural realm do not by definition have to be the way they exist in the supernatural realm--which relates to the properties of existence of that realm, which is another matter.

And furthermore, if God's dimension is so different conceptually, from ours, then when the bible so emphatically states that there is only "one God" and/or "God is one", how do we know it doesn't really intend that there are 3 Gods? If one can be three in this other realm, what is the significance TO US, that there is ONLY "one God"? What would "one God" mean?

The Bible represents God as one repeatedly. However, it also represents the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as being that one God and as being three persons, each completely identical in personal essence, but differing only in their function regarding redemption. Thus, the theology of the Trinity is used to explain Scripture as consistent.

Regards,

Paul

 

[DivineNames]

And Brad commented on it, and I commented in return. You're just presenting bogus ways to find problems with my answers.

No he didn't. I COMMENTED ON IT. Your getting a bit confused.

The original statement was with regard to me, and I was the one that commented on it.

 

[DivineNames]

If the "properties of existence" in the supernatural world can allow that God can be "one AND three"-

I can only believe that the "properties of existence" in the supernatural world could also perhaps allow that God can be morally perfect AND also a liar.

(It may be unimaginable to us how this could be so, but we can't limit God to our human understanding...)


Someone could say:

"We only know as much about the supernatural as is represented by Scripture...", and the Bible doesn't say that God, although morally perfect, happens to be a bit of a liar.

But then, if God is a liar, the Bible will likely be a pack of lies, and God may well not be honest about being the liar that he is.

Any appeal to what scripture says will only beg the question.


So the Bible may be the "word of God", and it may be from a morally perfect God, but it could well be a pack of lies...

(which doesn't necessitate that there would be no truth at all in it)

 

[DivineNames]

You said I have no business saying that God is a tri-unity. I quoted you in my last post on it.

What I actually said:

"Even if the Bible is consistent in portraying God as a "tri-unity", this doesn't show that a "tri-unity" kind of God is a possible thing that could exist. Therefore, you have no business making the claim: 'There is no abuse of logic in the Bible on representing the Trinity'".

 

[DivineNames]

what does the total lack of substance to your answers mean??

Even when I point out that you have got confused about the authorship of a post, you still don't realize, you carry on being confused about it...

What does that mean??

 

[DivineNames]

Can God create a world in which people genuinely have free will, and where (paradoxically) those people are also prevented by God from ever committing sin?

I wrote this for kwag_myers, but I also believe that MPaul's position would prevent him from being able to use the "free will defence" against a skeptic. This could be considered to be undermining Christian theology.

 

[DivineNames]

For God to be limited to what is "logically possible", I don't think this means that God is limited "by human logic".

You mean like making the sun stand still? Causing a donkey to speak like a man? Causing the Red Sea to part? Stuff like that? You didn't read 2 Timothy 3:2-7, did you? Or maybe you just don't see how that applies to your statements.

What do your examples have to do with my statements?

If we suppose that a Deity creates and sustains the world, then miraculous intervention is not against the law of non-contradiction. Not to my knowledge anyway.

Whether it is sensible to believe the miracle stories you find in an old book is a somewhat different matter...

 

[Cameron]

there is no difference in the seperation between the "persons" depicted at the baptism of Jesus, and the seperation between 3 GODS which happen to have a relationship and a unity of purpose

Jesus said, if you've seen me, you've seen the Father. If we only discuss this verse, then you could make the case for Jesus being the Father.

But that it not how doctrines are built. One must take the entirety of the Scriptures, not isolated verses.

There is one WHAT and three WHOs.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

there is no difference in the seperation between the "persons" depicted at the baptism of Jesus, and the seperation between 3 GODS which happen to have a relationship and a unity of purpose

Jesus said, if you've seen me, you've seen the Father. If we only discuss this verse, then you could make the case for Jesus being the Father.

But that it not how doctrines are built. One must take the entirety of the Scriptures, not isolated verses.

There is one WHAT and three WHOs.

Again the point eludes yet another another Trinitarian...

IF the scriptures indicate that God is "one What and 3 Whos" then the Christian religion is no different, in essence, from polytheistic religions. For example, The Gods of Mt. Olympus are one "What" and several "Whos".