• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

St. Patrick explains the Trinity

phattonez said:
He helps explain the seeming impossibility of God, who is one, being able to be one in three persons.
Click to expand...

I mean where, can you tell me the text?
 
phattonez said:
The part that I quoted.
Click to expand...

ok



Aquinas thinks that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, while referred to as 'persons,' are not in any way like separate individuals in the category God (e.g., the Father as the 'old man,' the Son as the 'young man,' the Holy Spirit as the 'dove'). He thinks the essential distinction that makes up the Trinity is one of relationships (i.e., states of being connected or ways in which two or more things are connected) that occur within God.

Sayint they are "persons" but not "individuals" but rather relationships which occur within God doesn't help.

A relationship is not an entity, it is an interaction between individual Things.

So the Son cannot be a relationship.

THe son can HAVE a relationship With the father, but that doesn't define what the son is.

From what I understand you're claiming (or the article is claiming) that Aquanas supported a kind of "social" trinitarianism, is that what you're saying?
 
RGacky3 said:
ok



Aquinas thinks that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, while referred to as 'persons,' are not in any way like separate individuals in the category God (e.g., the Father as the 'old man,' the Son as the 'young man,' the Holy Spirit as the 'dove'). He thinks the essential distinction that makes up the Trinity is one of relationships (i.e., states of being connected or ways in which two or more things are connected) that occur within God.

Sayint they are "persons" but not "individuals" but rather relationships which occur within God doesn't help.

A relationship is not an entity, it is an interaction between individual Things.

So the Son cannot be a relationship.

THe son can HAVE a relationship With the father, but that doesn't define what the son is.

From what I understand you're claiming (or the article is claiming) that Aquanas supported a kind of "social" trinitarianism, is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

It's a little bit more complicated than that.

Aquinasblog said:
Aquinas, in line with a solid theological tradition and particularly with St. Augustine, thinks that the Trinity reflects the same sort of relationship of self-knowledge and love going on in God. God the Father represents God. Proceeding from God is God's concept of himself, or his self-knowledge; the self-knowledge of God is what Aquinas thinks of as God the Son. And the Holy Spirit is the relationship of love between God's self-knowledge and God.
Click to expand...

Aquinas Blog - the Trinity
 
phattonez said:
It's a little bit more complicated than that.

Aquinas Blog - the Trinity
Click to expand...

Here we og, finally something to work with, So what became incarnate was God's concept of himself?

NOT a person? If the holy spirit is simply a relationship, how can a relationship be personal?

I take it you don't by social trinitarianism?
 
Ok, that was a very poor analogy of the trinity. I didn't read all the posts so I'm sorry if I'm repeating someone.
Here is better, simple analogy.
The reason the Godhead is difficult to understand is because we try to limit God to human characteristics. It works like this: if you draw a two dimensional stick figure on a piece of paper. Next to your stick guy, draw a square. This square represents a six sided cube. But because your stick guy is only 2D he can only see a square.Now imagine that each side of the cube is a different color. Now imagine turning the cube from one color to another. Because your stick guy only sees a square it will look like magic when the color changes. Now this is only an example of a three-dimensional concept to a two dimensional person. Try to compare that to an infinite God!

John 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Here is another concept.
1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

God IS love.

John15:13
"Greater love has no one than : to lay down ones life for one's friends".

Now can a man give his own life for himself?
1 Corinthians 13
5 Love is not rude, is not selfish,......

For God to BE love he has to BE a relationship.

Now look at this, it's cool.
Genesis 1
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
God created "man" (singular). in his image. In the image of God He created "him" ( again, singular); male AND female He created "them" (plural).

(My battery is about to die, you may need to look up the next verses.)

You will notice in Genesis 2:8 God put "man" (singular) in the garden.
Genesis 2
20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for "Adam" (still single) there was not found a helper comparable to him.

Genesis 2.
22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

23 And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

Did you see that? "She was "taken out of man"
She had to be in man before she could be "taken out of man"
So man was created both male and female, two persons in one, in God's image.

I can get into the divinity of Christ another time.
 
Last edited:
RGacky3 said:
ok

Sayint they are "persons" but not "individuals" but rather relationships which occur within God doesn't help.

A relationship is not an entity, it is an interaction between individual Things.

So the Son cannot be a relationship.

THe son can HAVE a relationship With the father, but that doesn't define what the son is.

From what I understand you're claiming (or the article is claiming) that Aquanas supported a kind of "social" trinitarianism, is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

Alright, so you seem more familiar to the concept than most. Here's the deal. Imagine with me the whole existence of things prior to creation and with the traditional Muslim/Jewish conception of God. There is one God, who is one individual, one person, no complex trinity crap. Is this God perfect in and of himself? Prior to creation, does he have innate all that which we would call good, or could God be better than his current state by creating the things he lacks? I think the later is more intuitive, specifically due to the relationship thing Phattonez has been talking about. Relationships are good, and a strict-monotheism says that God is not innately relational.

So, Christianity has the solution. We say that God is innately relational. In the beginning, prior to creation, God was not without relationship. The relationship is innate to him, so he's never without that particular good, thus we can say that God is perfect in and of himself.

But the real question is "how". How can relations be entirely internal? And that is why we distinguish Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are the same individual, but "person" is coming from a Koine Greek word associated to theater. The same individual often played multiple roles. A young boy would play the peasant kid as well as the princess. So in the play, the one boy was two persons. Equally, the one God, who is one individual, is three persons.

However, let me refute modalism before Phattonez calls me a heretic. God is not just putting on different masks (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and acting out some great, cosmic play. Instead, the only way to conceive of God as innately relational is to understand that God, the one individual, is on stage as three persons simultaneously, and those persons are interacting with each other. Sounds a bit schizophrenic, but that's because of my analogy usage. There are innately three persons within the one individual which have relationships with each other and are all wholly God.

Edits: my grammar sucks
 
Last edited:
Radical said:
Alright, so you seem more familiar to the concept than most. Here's the deal. Imagine with me the whole existence of things prior to creation and with the traditional Muslim/Jewish conception of God. There is one God, who is one individual, one person, no complex trinity crap. Is this God perfect in and of himself? Prior to creation, does he have innate all that which we would call good, or could God be better than his current state by creating the things he lacks? I think the later is more intuitive, specifically due to the relationship thing Phattonez has been talking about. Relationships are good, and a strict-monotheism says that God is not innately relational.

So, Christianity has the solution. We say that God is innately relational. In the beginning, prior to creation, God was not without relationship. The relationship is innate to him, so he's never without that particular good, thus we can say that God is perfect in and of himself.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, here's the thing, Prior to creation there is no time itself, meaning there can be no relation, creation IS part of God being God, InFact God is not God without creation, God is just Being, all that is. God itself is a relational term, so God becomes God to his creation when he creates (Hagel pointed this out)

As far as positing a Trinity prior to creation, that's solving a problem that doesn't exist.

Trying to anthropomorphise God to put Our standards on him prior to creation is pointless, all we know is the God of creation, and what that God has revealed to us in scripture, that's what we have to go by, and if his scripture says he is an individual personal being, then that's what we have to Accept.

We shouldn't prioritize philosophical concepts that are not taken from scripture, and also we have no real capacity to understand, since we only know God as the God of creation.


But the real question is "how". How can relations be entirely internal? And that is why we distinguish Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are the same individual, but "person" is coming from a Koine Greek word associated to theater. The same individual often played multiple roles. A young boy would play the peasant kid as well as the princess. So in the play, the one boy was two persons. Equally, the one God, who is one individual, is three persons.

However, let me refute modalism before Phattonez calls me a heretic. God is not just putting on different masks (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and acting out some great, cosmic play. Instead, the only way to conceive of God as innately relational is to understand that God, the one individual, is on stage as three persons simultaneously, and those persons are interacting with each other. Sounds a bit schizophrenic, but that's because of my analogy usage. There are innately three persons within the one individual which have relationships with each other and are all wholly God.
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting concept, I don't think Phattonez should Call you a heretic since what you're describing is basically Latin Trinitarianism.

We have to remember that if you're going to appeal to the koine Greek, it must be in a scriptural context, so if persons of the alleged Trinity are being mentionted as persons in Koine we need to cite the scripture to discuss it, the same individual, otherwise the semantics would be irrelevant.

Now, we would have to in order to deal With this issue correctly discuss the nature of a relationship, and what the relationship is of the persons to the individual.

So for example is a relationship something that individuals have With each other? Or persons? What is the distinction between an individual and a person? Does not a relationship demand individual and seperate Points of view?

ALso if this is posited prior to creation we have a problem, all being one individual there would be no way to distinguish the persons, since the "stage" doesn't exist. The Son, holy spirit and father only become distinguishable in a Latin Trinitarian system in their interactions With creation and their role in the purpose of God, so the problem (which I believe is a false problem) isn't actually solved.

Not to mention the lack of scriptural evidence for such a system.

But I appreciate the thought put into the response.
 
RGacky3 said:
Absolutely, here's the thing, Prior to creation there is no time itself, meaning there can be no relation, creation IS part of God being God, InFact God is not God without creation, God is just Being, all that is. God itself is a relational term, so God becomes God to his creation when he creates (Hagel pointed this out)

As far as positing a Trinity prior to creation, that's solving a problem that doesn't exist.

Trying to anthropomorphise God to put Our standards on him prior to creation is pointless, all we know is the God of creation, and what that God has revealed to us in scripture, that's what we have to go by, and if his scripture says he is an individual personal being, then that's what we have to Accept.

We shouldn't prioritize philosophical concepts that are not taken from scripture, and also we have no real capacity to understand, since we only know God as the God of creation.
Click to expand...

The Trinity is taught in the bible. It's rational exegesis. Are you non-trinitarian?

Also, the very first paragraph isn't intuitive me. Why are there no relations if there is no time? It seems to me that time is only necessary for dynamic relationships, such as "I like ice cream" requires my existence, which is within time, and my current desire for ice cream. But for static relationships it doesn't seem to be important, such as "knowledge of the truth is good", since that applies always in all scenarios (even if you debate this example, I still think that static relations are contrary).

Also also, I don't anthropromorphize God, God made us in his image and likeness.

RGacky3 said:
This is a very interesting concept, I don't think Phattonez should Call you a heretic since what you're describing is basically Latin Trinitarianism.

We have to remember that if you're going to appeal to the koine Greek, it must be in a scriptural context, so if persons of the alleged Trinity are being mentionted as persons in Koine we need to cite the scripture to discuss it, the same individual, otherwise the semantics would be irrelevant.

Now, we would have to in order to deal With this issue correctly discuss the nature of a relationship, and what the relationship is of the persons to the individual.

So for example is a relationship something that individuals have With each other? Or persons? What is the distinction between an individual and a person? Does not a relationship demand individual and seperate Points of view?

ALso if this is posited prior to creation we have a problem, all being one individual there would be no way to distinguish the persons, since the "stage" doesn't exist. The Son, holy spirit and father only become distinguishable in a Latin Trinitarian system in their interactions With creation and their role in the purpose of God, so the problem (which I believe is a false problem) isn't actually solved.

Not to mention the lack of scriptural evidence for such a system.

But I appreciate the thought put into the response.
Click to expand...

The distinction of "individual" and "person" is not scriptural. This doesn't bother me, since it is quite evident in the creeds.

I claim the bible does teach that there are interactions of the persons of the Trinity apart from creation. Jesus prays to the Father. Problem solved. Jesus is God. The Father is God. And they interact. More importantly, Jesus died on the cross and the Father did not. Also, while on the cross, Jesus could say "Father, why have you forsaken me?" because Jesus was dying while the Father was not, yet simultaneously they are the same individual. These examples do not need creation, they just need persons of the trinity to interact in mutually exclusive ways.

To say that there is no scriptural evidence of personal interaction prior to creation, I say the bible does not have the purpose of teaching metaphysics, so it does not need to. Second, I still think it does. Genesis 1:1-3 gives the three persons prior to creation. God was, the spirit hovered over the waters, and "said". We have all three. Father, Spirit, Son.
 
Radical said:
The Trinity is taught in the bible. It's rational exegesis. Are you non-trinitarian?
Click to expand...

I am non-trinitarian and no the Trinity isn't taught in the bible :).

Also, the very first paragraph isn't intuitive me. Why are there no relations if there is no time? It seems to me that time is only necessary for dynamic relationships, such as "I like ice cream" requires my existence, which is within time, and my current desire for ice cream. But for static relationships it doesn't seem to be important, such as "knowledge of the truth is good", since that applies always in all scenarios (even if you debate this example, I still think that static relations are contrary).

Also also, I don't anthropromorphize God, God made us in his image and likeness.
Click to expand...

the very nature of a relationship is that of interaction, interaction necessitates time, since it necessitates change.

"knowledge of the truth is good" isn't an example of a relationship, it's a proposition.

The distinction of "individual" and "person" is not scriptural. This doesn't bother me, since it is quite evident in the creeds.

I claim the bible does teach that there are interactions of the persons of the Trinity apart from creation. Jesus prays to the Father. Problem solved. Jesus is God. The Father is God. And they interact. More importantly, Jesus died on the cross and the Father did not. Also, while on the cross, Jesus could say "Father, why have you forsaken me?" because Jesus was dying while the Father was not, yet simultaneously they are the same individual. These examples do not need creation, they just need persons of the trinity to interact in mutually exclusive ways.

To say that there is no scriptural evidence of personal interaction prior to creation, I say the bible does not have the purpose of teaching metaphysics, so it does not need to. Second, I still think it does. Genesis 1:1-3 gives the three persons prior to creation. God was, the spirit hovered over the waters, and "said". We have all three. Father, Spirit, Son.
Click to expand...

I don't Accept the Canonicity of the Creeds, I'm a Sola Scriptura guy.

Jesus prays to the father in creation.

Jesus isn't God in the same way the Father is God, and yes they interact, within creation.

All of the examples you gave are examples of interaction within creation, they don't make any sense outside of creation.

As far as them being the same individual, I need a definition, what does "individual" mean, and in what sense are they the same individual? Also what does person mean?

As far as Genesis 1:1-3

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

I'm really at a loss as to what you're talking about here, there is no multiplicity of persons, God swept over the face of the water and then he spoke ... it's the same person.

Either way Genesis 1 is not pre-creation.
 
RGacky3 said:
I am non-trinitarian and no the Trinity isn't taught in the bible :).
Click to expand...

What a shame.

RGacky3 said:
the very nature of a relationship is that of interaction, interaction necessitates time, since it necessitates change.
Click to expand...

Relationships don't require interaction. The relationship between me and my mom is permanent. I'm her son, she's my mom. My mom was adopted and never met her biological parents. Those biological parents are her biological parents regardless of interaction. All that is required for the individuals to exist. If her biological dad dies, then technically she doesn't have a biological father any more. So the relationship is not contingent on anything other than the individuals existing, not interaction.

So since God is ever-existent, there isn't a problem about death or something like it. There is possibility for relationship to be statically fixed within God himself.

RGacky3 said:
"knowledge of the truth is good" isn't an example of a relationship, it's a proposition.
Click to expand...

So knowledge, truth, and goodness don't exist except as words? That's not a good philosophical foundation... Anything expressed with language is a proposition. But the one I made is not only a proposition. It corresponds to external references and asserts there is a relation among them. Is it good that God is omniscient? Would God be better if he were not omniscient? The answers to these questions confirm the eternal, static relationship between knowledge, truth, and goodness.

RGacky3 said:
I don't Accept the Canonicity of the Creeds, I'm a Sola Scriptura guy.
Click to expand...

So you believe the words of the bible, but don't trust the students of the guys that wrote it. That's awkward.

RGacky3 said:
Jesus prays to the father in creation. Jesus isn't God in the same way the Father is God, and yes they interact, within creation. All of the examples you gave are examples of interaction within creation, they don't make any sense outside of creation. As far as them being the same individual, I need a definition, what does "individual" mean, and in what sense are they the same individual? Also what does person mean? As far as Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. I'm really at a loss as to what you're talking about here, there is no multiplicity of persons, God swept over the face of the water and then he spoke ... it's the same person. Either way Genesis 1 is not pre-creation.
Click to expand...

First, if you only extract theology from scripture, and scripture is only in a post-creation context, then why are you requiring pre-creation scripture to change your mind? You're presupposition is that it doesn't exist. That's borderline deception. Definitely is a red herring.

Also, I've already told you what "individual" means and what "person" means. Not only that, but these are outlined in the creed. If you know enough to rationally reject the creeds, then you should not have to ask these questions.

More importantly, most of what you write is a red herring. Is God completely good in and of himself, yes or no? Are relationships good, yes or no? If God is not completely good in and of himself, then he is not God. If relationships are not good, then faith, friendship, etc, are evils. If God is completely good and relationships are good, then God is innately relational. Ergo Trinity. The only objection to the Trinity is atheism.
 
Radical said:
Relationships don't require interaction. The relationship between me and my mom is permanent. I'm her son, she's my mom. My mom was adopted and never met her biological parents. Those biological parents are her biological parents regardless of interaction. All that is required for the individuals to exist. If her biological dad dies, then technically she doesn't have a biological father any more. So the relationship is not contingent on anything other than the individuals existing, not interaction.

So since God is ever-existent, there isn't a problem about death or something like it. There is possibility for relationship to be statically fixed within God himself.
Click to expand...

Your mom doesn't have a relationship With her biological parents, at least not a personal relationship, they have a biological relationship, which is due to interaction, i.e. her being born by them, the relationship you have With Your mom is based on the interaction you have had and intend on having.

Relationship is NOT contingent on People existing, it's contingent on them having something to do With each other ... i.e. interaction.

So knowledge, truth, and goodness don't exist except as words? That's not a good philosophical foundation... Anything expressed with language is a proposition. But the one I made is not only a proposition. It corresponds to external references and asserts there is a relation among them. Is it good that God is omniscient? Would God be better if he were not omniscient? The answers to these questions confirm the eternal, static relationship between knowledge, truth, and goodness.
Click to expand...

I never said they don't exist other then as Words I said the sentance "knowledge of the truth is good" is not describing a relationship, it's describing a proposition about what the knowedge of the truth is. Unless you are saying that the knowledge of the truth being good is a relationship between goodness and the knoweldge of the truth, which it isn't, since "goodness" is a property which you are asigining to knowledge of the truth, not a relationship between 2 beings.

So you believe the words of the bible, but don't trust the students of the guys that wrote it. That's awkward.
Click to expand...

Like whome? the Nicean and Calcedonian Creed ware not written by students of the apostles.

First, if you only extract theology from scripture, and scripture is only in a post-creation context, then why are you requiring pre-creation scripture to change your mind? You're presupposition is that it doesn't exist. That's borderline deception. Definitely is a red herring.

Also, I've already told you what "individual" means and what "person" means. Not only that, but these are outlined in the creed. If you know enough to rationally reject the creeds, then you should not have to ask these questions.

More importantly, most of what you write is a red herring. Is God completely good in and of himself, yes or no? Are relationships good, yes or no? If God is not completely good in and of himself, then he is not God. If relationships are not good, then faith, friendship, etc, are evils. If God is completely good and relationships are good, then God is innately relational. Ergo Trinity. The only objection to the Trinity is atheism.
Click to expand...

1. I'm not requiring a pre-creation scripture to change my mind, I'm saying if the scripture that we have is silent on the issue, then we simply don't know. My presupposition is NOT that it doesn't exist, it's that we don't have any evidence for it so we cannot say either way.

2. Where did you define individual and person? I may have missed it, also which Creed defines those 2 Things.

3. The Logic doesn't follow at all ... there are persons who may have existsed that don't exist, God is not in a relationship With them, dose that mean God is lacking goodness? No because relationships are only good inso far as they are With People that exist, before any person other than God existed it doesn't take away from his goodness that he is not in relationship With what does not exist. It's also good to help someone who is sick, since there was no one that was sick before creation does it take away from Gods goodness that he is not helping them? Absolutely not, it's Complete nonsense.

4. The objection to the Trinity is the bible.
 
RGacky3 said:
4. The objection to the Trinity is the bible.
Click to expand...

only to heresy's which have been put down time and time again.
you distortion of scripture does not help you at all.

I don't think you understand what sola scripture means. it means that the bible is the actual authority.
you obviously don't think that the bible is the absolute authority since you continue to distort what the bible says.

How can one God be three persons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom