The Baptism of Jesus - Trinity or Tritheism?

[BradtheImpaler]

But MANY GODS could also be "seperate and united". What's the theoretical difference between one God who is somehow also "seperate", and many Gods who are somehow also "united"?

This one resurrected from the grave --- in human skin.

Once again, your response has nothing to do with the immediate issue. Trinitariansm affirms that the Son existed in the Godhead, as a distinct person, BEFORE the incarnation.

 

[Ormly]

But MANY GODS could also be "seperate and united". What's the theoretical difference between one God who is somehow also "seperate", and many Gods who are somehow also "united"?

This one resurrected from the grave --- in human skin.

Once again, your response has nothing to do with the immediate issue. Trinitariansm affirms that the Son existed in the Godhead, as a distinct person, BEFORE the incarnation.

Which is correct, I haven't violated and you don't understand any more than you can explain how the lips of your mouth express the content of your heart. Go figger.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

But MANY GODS could also be "seperate and united". What's the theoretical difference between one God who is somehow also "seperate", and many Gods who are somehow also "united"?

This one resurrected from the grave --- in human skin.

Once again, your response has nothing to do with the immediate issue. Trinitariansm affirms that the Son existed in the Godhead, as a distinct person, BEFORE the incarnation.

Which is correct, I haven't violated and you don't understand any more than you can explain how the lips of your mouth express the content of your heart. Go figger.

Your responses are easy to "figger" - 90% of what you say is pure evasiveness and the other 10% clearly disqualifies you as a Trinitarian anyway. Case in point -

ORMLY: "I already agreed they they were as you already stated, parts, but parts of ONE person"

Which is exactly why your analogy (which for some incomprehensible reason you are still touting) is a failed analogy. Are you aguing that God is 3 persons or one? I realize you have a problem communicating but try again. If you're arguing God is one person you are not a Trinitarian, yet you made the following derogatory remark about me...

ORMLY: "You don't know your bible NOR UNDERSTAND TRINITARIAN BELIEF"

...so I have to conclude you consider yourself a Trinitarian even though you believe the members of the Trinity are "parts" of God, and, apparently, that God is one person per your analogy. If so, it is overwhelmingly apparent that it is YOU who do not "understand Trinitarian belief".

 

[Ormly]

But MANY GODS could also be "seperate and united". What's the theoretical difference between one God who is somehow also "seperate", and many Gods who are somehow also "united"?

This one resurrected from the grave --- in human skin.

Once again, your response has nothing to do with the immediate issue. Trinitariansm affirms that the Son existed in the Godhead, as a distinct person, BEFORE the incarnation.

Which is correct, I haven't violated and you don't understand any more than you can explain how the lips of your mouth express the content of your heart. Go figger.

Your responses are easy to "figger" - 90% of what you say is pure evasiveness and the other 10% clearly disqualifies you as a Trinitarian anyway. Case in point -

ORMLY: "I already agreed they they were as you already stated, parts, but parts of ONE person"

Which is exactly why your analogy (which for some incomprehensible reason you are still touting) is a failed analogy. Are you aguing that God is 3 persons or one? I realize you have a problem communicating but try again. If you're arguing God is one person you are not a Trinitarian, yet you made the following derogatory remark about me...

ORMLY: "You don't know your bible NOR UNDERSTAND TRINITARIAN BELIEF"

...so I have to conclude you consider yourself a Trinitarian even though you believe the members of the Trinity are "parts" of God, and, apparently, that God is one person per your analogy. If so, it is overwhelmingly apparent that it is YOU who do not "understand Trinitarian belief".

Though they be only parts, clearly your mouth and your heart are ONE. Don't think so? Try expressing your heart without your mouth flapping.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Though they be only parts, clearly your mouth and your heart are ONE

One what?

Don't think so? Try expressing your heart without your mouth flapping.

Ah, there it is again - the constant insulting attitude of a man living in "unsullied communion with God, being the kind of man he expects us to be" :P

 

[MPaul]

The arrogance lies with you -- so stuff it and finish addressing blamelessness. You said there were no/are/whatever, blameless. I gave many scriptures proving you wrong. Go from there.

Stuff it?? Are you getting frustrated??

Actually, I answered you on blamelessnes, but apparently, you wanted to believe that my answer was not an answer, which was established by your reference to a Yak Shepherd. I believe your Yak Shepherd was a response to my answer, just like some people believe Santa Claus really does live at the North Pole.

But, I'll present the answer again..

As I cited before, the Bible says all humankind is in sin. Romans 3:23--see also Romans 3:10-18. Adam represented all humankind, Romans 5:12-19. See also, Romans 7:21-23. And, as the NT has the blood sacrifice of Christ to cover the sin of those with a covenant with God, the OT has a covenant based on shedding the blood of animals, as a substitute for the coming sacrifice of Christ, to cover sin. Do you want to say that those people who have a covenant with God, and who have confessed their sin and received blood sacrifice to cover their sin are held to be blamed by God for unrighteousness?? No, the covenant makes them righteous or blameless.

Therefore, if the Bible holds all people are in sin, but at some places notes individuals are considered righteous before God, that righteousness is based on a covenant with God, having blood sacrifice as an atonement for sin. To hold otherwise would be to say the Bible contradicts itself. However, it is not necessary to impose such a contradiction on Scripture, as the righteous individuals noted can be considered as such by God, based on a blood covenant with him.

Ok--let's look at some of the specific verses you cited.

Psalm 119:1 (KJV)
Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord.

Note the undefiled are those who walk in the Law--and the law says to offer blood sacrifices for sin. If a person does not offer such sacrifices, they are not in the law---and their way is not undefiled.

Luke 1:6 (KJV)
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Again, they kept the ordinances of the Lord--that is, blood sacrifices.

Matthew 12:5 (KJV)
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

The priests sin, yet are blameless. Hmm-the priests' job was to present blood sacrifices, and that was for their own sin, as well as the people's.

They were righteous for keeping the Law--that means offering blood sacrifices.

Deut. 18:13 (KJV)
Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God.

And how shalt thou be perfect?? by following the Law of the Pentateuch, which includes blood sacrifices.

2 Samuel 22:33 (KJV)
God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect.

And how does God may his way perfect?? through blood sacrifices.

2 Chron. 15:17 (KJV)
But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.

Asa did not follow the way of pagan Gods: that is, he followed the covenant of God, which includes blood sacrifices.

Regards,

Paul

 

[MPaul]

So you are saying that the reality of God doesn't have to be "logical" or "governed by the laws of the natural world".

Nope. This is a straw man argument. I am saying that the Bible represents that supernatural laws supercede the laws of nature--that's why God can be present everywhere, though a person cannot--that's why God deosn't have a beginning but is eternal, though a person must have a beginning. Saying that the supernatural has a supernatural logic does not mean it is illogical. As I said before, there is no contradiction in noting that the supernatural world supercedes the natural world--but that is its definition. Are you saying that the definition of "supernatural" is illogical or a contradiction?? If so, you do so by faith. You cannot prove it. But then, you should wonder why the book that represents the supernatural, the Bible, is so good at predictive prophecy.

If you want to put the doctrine outside of analysis, the flip side of the argument is that you can't know if the doctrine is coherent. For all you know, its completely meaningless nonsense.

On the contrary, noting that the Bible can only be consistently interpreted by accepting its representations on the character of the supernatural realm is not putting its doctrines outside of analysis. It's the very essence of analysis. And, to note that some things of the Bible are myterious is completely consistent with the natural world. One example would be how Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are contradictory. Or, do you have an explanation for making these two fields of physics consistent?? Maybe, you feel it's ok for the natural world to be mysterious, but still the supernatural world can't be?? Hmm-but you want the principles of the natural world to be the basis of limiting our understanding of the supernatural. Still, you use a double standard.

It is not, as you said, "Thus, God can be both separate and united".
Rather, it is perhaps God can be both separate and united, but whether it is possible is impossible to know.

No. The Bible represents God as separate and united. It's only impossible, perhaps, for those who disbelieve in the Bible. I believe in it.

Also, with regard to those who want to show the doctrine isn't coherent, you will not entirely evade them merely by appealing to divine mystery.

I will say that it depends on a higher logic, and that even the natural world has mysteries. Prophecy is a mystery. How is it the Bible got the prediciton of the recreation of Israel in a single day correct, after a period of about 2,500 years.

Regards,

Paul

 

[Free]

I'ld like to take this opportunity during the lull of personal attacks to remind all that personal attacks are in violation of the TOS. If anyone is not familiar with the TOS, they are posted in General Talk.

Please address the arguments and not the person. If someone is getting under your skin, I suggest that you take a break for a while. Any more and I will hand out warnings and/or lock the thread.

 

[DivineNames]

In considering the Trinity, first it must be noted that God follows a supernatural logic, not an natural, earthly logic. For example, he is eternal, present everywhere in the universe.

space-time is "present everywhere in the universe". It doesn't require "supernatural logic" in that particular case.

 

[DivineNames]

It is not, as you said, "Thus, God can be both separate and united".
Rather, it is perhaps God can be both separate and united, but whether it is possible is impossible to know.

No. The Bible represents God as separate and united. It's only impossible, perhaps, for those who disbelieve in the Bible. I believe in it.

That you believe in something, is not the same as knowing it is possible. For all you know its completely incoherent.

 

[DivineNames]

I am saying that the Bible represents that supernatural laws supercede the laws of nature--that's why God can be present everywhere, though a person cannot--that's why God deosn't have a beginning but is eternal, though a person must have a beginning. Saying that the supernatural has a supernatural logic does not mean it is illogical.

The examples you have given seem to be a false analogy.

That something wouldn't be a contradiction for God, which would be a contradiction for man, (or the other way around) is no problem at all.

That doesn't mean that something can't be a contradiction for God. It also doesn't mean that we can't argue to show that such and such (plausibly) would be a contradiction for God.

For example, I am sure we could plausibly argue that it would be absurd that God could commit suicide. (something that we could do without any contradiction)

 

[DivineNames]

you want the principles of the natural world to be the basis of limiting our understanding of the supernatural. Still, you use a double standard.

OK. Whatever you say...


Let me quote you-


"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."

http://www.loveofchrist.info/theology/trinity.html


Perhaps God can, "transcend human experience and logic".

Nevertheless, you are very clearly saying in that quote that the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God.


"If then we deny that logic applies to God, we undermine our ability to know anything about God. Take for example, Paul's promise "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) Now it appears that as Van Til would have it, the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God. If so, then in light of God's promise in Romans 10:9, two contradictory states of affairs could obtain such that we could be saved and not saved, or God though morally perfect could in this case be lying. So if we accept that no truth, including the law of non-contradiction, can apply univocally to God and creatures, then any theological assertion we care to make - God is three persons, Jesus is God - could be simultaneously true and false. If this is Van Til's position Hoeksema is indeed correct that it would "destroy the very foundations of theology." Under the rubric of divine sovereignty and transcendence, we would undermine our ability to say anything whatsoever about God. Along similar lines, to identify a contradiction with God would undermine theology, and by extension creation, apparently leaving us in a morass of trivialism."


http://www.quodlibet.net/rauser-trinity.shtml

 

[DivineNames]

Please note: denying that the law of non-contradiction applies to God, can not merely be passed off as "supernatural logic". It really does involve a denial that logic applies to God, at least in the sense most of us use that term...

 

[Ormly]

I'ld like to take this opportunity during the lull of personal attacks to remind all that personal attacks are in violation of the TOS. If anyone is not familiar with the TOS, they are posted in General Talk.

Please address the arguments and not the person. If someone is getting under your skin, I suggest that you take a break for a while. Any more and I will hand out warnings and/or lock the thread.

They are their own argument. Lock me out.

 

[DivineNames]

On the contrary, noting that the Bible can only be consistently interpreted by accepting its representations on the character of the supernatural realm is not putting its doctrines outside of analysis. It's the very essence of analysis.

You are going off on a bit of a tangent. Scriptural analysis of whatever kind, is distinct from the kind of "analysis" I was talking about.

 

[MPaul]

space-time is "present everywhere in the universe". It doesn't require "supernatural logic" in that particular case.

Yes, I've noted time and again the two realms have similarities and differences, and also how the different natures of the two realms are being mixed improperly in the thread to contrive an argument.

Are you also--BradtheImpaler?? Maybe, I'm getting my posters mixed up. But, the thread is long.

That you believe in something, is not the same as knowing it is possible. For all you know its completely incoherent.

The something you reference is biblical representation. The Bible represents itself as the Word of God. By faith, I trust its representations. Thus, I believe that in a supernatural realm that supercedes the natural, it is possible for God to be united and have separate features to his unity. It is not incoherent to believe a supernatural realm is possible, or that it has principles of existence above the natural realm. It is not incoherent to believe the Bible is the Word of God. However, it is true that for now, I cannot know the exact nature of the supernatural realm--only as much as what Scripture represents.

<<<<I am saying that the Bible represents that supernatural laws supercede the laws of nature--that's why God can be present everywhere, though a person cannot--that's why God deosn't have a beginning but is eternal, though a person must have a beginning. Saying that the supernatural has a supernatural logic does not mean it is illogical.>>>>

The examples you have given seem to be a false analogy.

That something wouldn't be a contradiction for God, which would be a contradiction for man, (or the other way around) is no problem at all.

That doesn't mean that something can't be a contradiction for God. It also doesn't mean that we can't argue to show that such and such (plausibly) would be a contradiction for God.

For example, I am sure we could plausibly argue that it would be absurd that God could commit suicide. (something that we could do without any contradiction)

The examples I gave are not analogies at all. They are examples of biblical representations on the supernatural realm following different laws of existence than the natural realm. I reference them to demonstrate that three being three but also one is consistent in general with the biblical representation of supernatural principles of existence differing.

The rest of your argument doesn't address the issues I raised either. I said in essence that what is contradictiory in the natural world, or that is, impossible, does not have to be impossible in the supernatural world. It's true I haven't been to the supernatural world, but the Bible represents many conditions of its existence. The fact that such representations could not be possible in the natural world, or would in fact be contradictions, does not mean they have to be considered impossible in the supernatural world. The argument against the Trinity in this thread is, over and over again, "but the natural world doesn't function the way the Bible represents the Trinity." That argument is flawed outright from the beginning and has no meaning. The natural world cannot even explain how time can be conceived as having a beginning. Yet, the Bible explains that the supernatural realm existed before the natural world was created, and the supernatural realm is in control of time, which is demonstrated by Scripture's predictive prophecies. Thus, the supernatural world supercedes the principles of existence of the natural world.

<<<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.>>>
Perhaps God can, "transcend human experience and logic".

Nevertheless, you are very clearly saying in that quote that the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God.

NO, that is a strawman argument. I am saying that what is contradictory, and therefore impossible in the natural world, does not have to be contradictory or impossible in the supernatural world.

If then we deny that logic applies to God, we undermine our ability to know anything about God. Take for example, Paul's promise "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) Now it appears that as Van Til would have it, the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God. If so, then in light of God's promise in Romans 10:9, two contradictory states of affairs could obtain such that we could be saved and not saved, or God though morally perfect could in this case be lying. So if we accept that no truth, including the law of non-contradiction, can apply univocally to God and creatures, then any theological assertion we care to make - God is three persons, Jesus is God - could be simultaneously true and false. If this is Van Til's position Hoeksema is indeed correct that it would "destroy the very foundations of theology." Under the rubric of divine sovereignty and transcendence, we would undermine our ability to say anything whatsoever about God. Along similar lines, to identify a contradiction with God would undermine theology, and by extension creation, apparently leaving us in a morass of trivialism."

More straw man argument. I didn't deny logic applies to God. I said that supernatural existence can be different than natural exisitence, and when the Bible makes a representation of the supernatural as following different laws than the natural, this representation cannot be denied on the basis that it wouldn't work in the natural world. However, if the Bible represented the supernatural world as following one set of principles, and then set out a second set of principles for its existence that were contradictory, then that would be supernatually a contradiction and illogical. You are just finding new ways conceptually to try to force natuarl laws having to control the supernatural realm.

Please note: denying that the law of non-contradiction applies to God, can not merely be passed off as "supernatural logic". It really does involve a denial that logic applies to God, at least in the sense most of us use that term...

This is a straw man argument. I do not deny that logic does apply to God. I hold that it is not illogical for the Bible to represent that the supernatural realm supercedes the natural realm. You are trying to say, either the supernatural realm must have the same laws of existence as the natural world or it is illogical. COMPLETELY RIDICUOUS!! No, you can only make that statement by faith and you have nothing to base it on. As long as the Bible represents the supernatural world consistently, it is not contradictory and it is not illogical--but whether you want to believe the representations of Scripture is a matter of faith. You seem to be saying that by a great faith you have, that because any supernatural world that exists must have the same laws of existence as the natural world, you know that the Trinity is not possible.

<<<On the contrary, noting that the Bible can only be consistently interpreted by accepting its representations on the character of the supernatural realm is not putting its doctrines outside of analysis. It's the very essence of analysis.>>>

You are going off on a bit of a tangent. Scriptural analysis of whatever kind, is distinct from the kind of "analysis" I was talking about.

I'm going off on a tangent?? I used the meaning for your words found in the dictionary. How convenient-- you have a hidden meaning for them. Then, you have a basis to tell me I'm off tangent. Oh, well.

Regards,

Paul

 

[DivineNames]

The rest of your argument doesn't address the issues I raised either. I said in essence that what is contradictiory in the natural world, or that is, impossible, does not have to be impossible in the supernatural world.

Why would I address that issue? I have previously acknowledged the possibility of what you are saying.

 

[DivineNames]

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.

Perhaps God can, "transcend human experience and logic".
Nevertheless, you are very clearly saying in that quote that the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God.

NO, that is a strawman argument. I am saying that what is contradictory, and therefore impossible in the natural world, does not have to be contradictory or impossible in the supernatural world.

Again, it may not be impossible in the "supernatural world". Fine. I have accepted that more than once.

But what you are saying in that quote involves that the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God.

If you want to say that its "not a contradiction in the supernatural world", that isn't going to save you from breaking the law of non-contradiction.

LET ME REPEAT: I am not saying its impossible, I am merely saying it breaks a principle of logic, which will cause the theologian lots of problems.

 

[DivineNames]

I'm going off on a tangent??

Yes indeed, it seems you do like to go off on a tangent...

 

[DivineNames]

Are you also--BradtheImpaler??

No.