TriUnity: an OTHER view

koinonia

New member
TriUnity : an “OTHER” view

The following is presented simply as a witness giving testimony of what has been seen and heard in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. The unity that our God so much desires is edified by presenting ourselves and accepting others as witnesses. This approach serves to somewhat lessen any unnecessary burden of offense when (one's) testimony is given with confidence. We have a precious gift in Christ that, in the most sincere way, allows us to talk with each other in the same way we talk within ourselves to ourselves as we work out our own understandings with ourselves. This patience and graciousness we easily have with ourselves in our personal search for truth needs to be there when we bump up against that process going on outside ourselves (in others).

All Christians believe that there is One I AM, but they are unsettled (perturbed by each other) regarding the Nature of this One. The written Word, His Special Revelation, seems to allow this dysfunction, else there would not be sincere believers in various disparate schools of thought. Is there any other (reliable) testimony that can be brought to bear on this extremely important issue (even, enigma)? Yes, because the Scripture tells us that God's Creation witnesses to the glory of His Being [His General Revelation (Psalms 19:1-3, 85:11; Romans 1:20)].

The intent of this thread is to witness that the trinitarian state of I AM is His Creative State of Being : this is Who I AM IS (self-wills TO BE) in His desire to create. That is, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit is how I AM (willfully) self-exists in His desire to create that which He (specifically) seeks in His creative labor : the Body of Christ. Evidence from the nature of created reality (General Revelation) will be adduced in the assertion that were I AM not triune (Other, within Self) then an objective creation, a creation wholly other than Him, would not (even) be possible. That is, our dimension of reality (our Cosmos) would not have the degree of freedom necessary to bring forth the autonomous beings that we are : (in a sense) we would be but ethereal, ephemeral, phantasms in the mind of God (analogous to the dream state). A corollary of this is that there is no other rational means of escape, given the true nature of (created) reality, from a pantheistic view of God vis-a-vis Creation.

In this initial post it is critical to note that the assertion that I AM's free will choice to exist as Trinity [so that He fulfills His desire to be Creator of that which He (specifically) desires to create] in no way means that He is changing or becoming – God most certainly does not change or become. The temptation to think this way is inspired by the natural intuitions of our (created) ontology, and forgets that the aseity of I AM sets Him wholly apart from what we are as beings. The Being of God exists in the state of...IS (-ness). His revelation of His essential nature and identity to Moses in Exodus 3 asserts that He IS WHO (THAT) HE IS. If (as is argued for here) I AM has revealed to us that He is Father, Son, Holy Spirit then this is Who He Is because He (is the Power Who) says so. That is, this is Who He Is [as (the) Creator] before there is anything created to question Who He Is. His aseity is to be no more questioned than is His (for example) omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.
 

koinonia

New member
Taking Paul's cue (1 Corinthians 15:46) the thought process here starts with the natural, and then goes on to the spiritual. We live at a time when the Creator is taking back to Himself the witness of the natural world on its own terms. Listen to a practicing atheist, Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow, as he laments that “contemplation of superstrings may evolve into an activity as remote from conventional particle physics as particle physics is from chemistry, to be conducted at schools of divinity by future equivalents of medieval theologians…for the first time since the Dark Ages, we can see how our noble search may end, with faith replacing science once again.” Glashow's lamentation here goes to the heart of what science has, relatively recently, discovered about the nature of reality at its deepest depths. Quite literally, in the words of Niels Bohr, one of the earliest pioneers of Quantum Theory, “everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” This is just another way of stating the very thing that Hebrews 11:3 asserts : “...(the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that) the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” In other words, the visible (material, natural, physical) emerges from the invisible (immaterial, non-physical, “spiritual”), exactly as Quantum Field Theory reveals. This theory has it that “all that really exists” is a undulating fluid-like, non-material field of “Something” from which emerges the “Everything” we know as the Cosmos. Matter (particles) is (are) an epiphenomenon arising from vortices in this field.

So...the Cosmos emerges from “the (creative) waters” – mysteriously : “the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). I AM expresses His thoughts, and the “fluid-like field” takes the form of these words (expressed thoughts). Alternately, per Sir James Jean, a leading voice in the Quantum Revolution : “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.” This great imposing phenomenal world of concrete mountains and endless galaxies is an ingenious non-material construct that is -- as Max Planck, the originator of Quantum Theory, asserted – “derivative from consciousness.” The reality of the world around us, the world in which we are embedded, is generated by Consciousness (I AM). The whole of the natural world is expressed thought!
 

koinonia

New member
The picture of the nature of reality that has been put together (by science) in the last one hundred years is so counter-intuitive that some of its brightest lights have described it as “magical” (John Wheeler) and “absurd” (Richard Feynman). More prosaically put, “quantum mechanics is the first theory in human history that violates the basic a priori principles that have shaped human thought since immemorial times.” (Miguel Ferrero, David Salgado, José Luís Sánchez-Gómez. QUANTUM MECHANICS AND MAGIC: AN OPEN DISCUSSION. 2014).

One of those violated a priori principles can be traced at least as far back as (actually further than) Aristotle (the father of the scientific method). His empirically based epistemology assumes that the scientist (observer) is (can be) an objective agent vis-a-vis the object being observed. Quantum Theory demonstrates that this is a naive presupposition because the cosmos, and everything in it (including us), is an organic whole. That is, it is impossible, within the closed system that the cosmos is, to have such a thing (concept, reality) as Objectivity.

Objectivity is not a (native) quality of the closed system of (our) reality, nor is it a quality that (pure) Science can co-opt for itself (out of thin air) because (one of) its a priori assumption(s) is the cosmos is all there is (philosophical naturalism). However, objectivity IS (actually) a quality of (our) reality for the reason that it derives its ontology from outside (other than) the cosmos. That is, the (ontic) reality of object / object existence is grounded in the Creator Himself because He (self-willfully) exists in this State of Being. As a matter of fact, it is precisely because the One (I AM) [Who IS Who (That) He Is (Exodus 3:14)] exists as Trinity that He is (can be) the Creator of a truly objective – OTHER – reality.

Why is that? For the very reason that, as stated above, the true nature of our created reality is immaterial (spiritual) in that it is (simply) expressed thoughts – words. But...where is the place that these expressed thoughts are spoken (into)? The Apostle Paul proclaims that it is “ in Him (that) we live and move and have our being, (Acts 17:28), and he says this to un-regenerate people. How can this be? The answer is that it is for the same reason that the bush and the Fire were able to co-exist during Moses' encounter on Mount Horeb (Exodus 3). The bush and the Fire existed as wholly (ontologically) other realities to one another (each in its own dimension), occupying “the same time and same place.”

The dimension in which Creation exists is generated “(super)naturally” in I AM in that He “lets” (as used in Genesis 1) a “separation / emptiness / void” exist in His Being. This KENOSIS in His Being is the WOMB of the wholly OTHER Reality that we experience as our Cosmos.

More can be said....

in the LOVE Who is God.
 

Stephen

Active member
I've read through this four times now. I do appreciate the acknowledgement that the trinity cannot be explained in this reality.

You have obviously put a lot of thought into it, but I don't get where you are you are going. For example:

Evidence from the nature of created reality (General Revelation) will be adduced in the assertion that were I AM not triune (Other, within Self) then an objective creation, a creation wholly other than Him, would not (even) be possible.

There are a few assumptions that I can't relate to.
  • Why 3, as opposed to 33 or any other number?
  • Why is it necessary to that the creation be wholly other than him? I don't think that is the intention of the creation at all.
 

koinonia

New member
Greetings Brother,

I appreciate the time you spent “trying to see where I'm going,” and thanks for giving me the opportunity to elaborate, and, hopefully, clarify. I'll keep this reply focused on your particular comments in an attempt to connect more personally with you, and your initial concerns. As I said in my sign off, there is much more that can be said to enrich the context and content of my testimony.

Stephen>>>I do appreciate the acknowledgment that the trinity cannot be explained in this reality.<<<

That is not quite my position...because what I'm doing is changing the question that is being asked about the Trinity. Asking how One is Three is the wrong approach because the created “i am” (that we are) cannot wrestle itself free from its native corruption (to be able) to “understand” the aseity of I AM. That is, as a result of having lost the palpable PRESENCE of I AM at its beginning (in the Garden), the created i am defaulted to reifying itself (as THEE center) in its ontology. This corruption, now being the center from which, and around which, our “reasoning” orbits, keeps us continually referring back to our own sense of what it means to be an “i am.” Thus do we invariably delimit I AM in our cogitations about Him.

The (sinful) default state of self-centered-ness is antithetical to our Creator's intention in bringing us into being in that He always intended us to be other-centered beings (God-centered beings). It is for this reason that this apologetic recasts the “question” to why I AM is Trinity.

Stephen>>>You have obviously put a lot of thought into it, but I don't get where you are you are going. For example: koinonia said: Evidence from the nature of created reality (General Revelation) will be adduced in the assertion that were I AM not triune (Other, within Self) then an objective creation, a creation wholly other than Him, would not (even) be possible.<<<

As briefly discussed, the quality of objectivity does not inhere, organically, in the closed system that the Cosmos is. Yet the quality of objectivity is key to us being (truly) real free-will beings. If there is not an ontic object / object quality in our existence then we are but robots running a program. That is, we are not autonomous beings who are free to do other than what we “should” do (we are not really free moral agents).

Stephen>>>Why 3, as opposed to 33 or any other number?<<<

Simply because the Special Revelation (of Scripture) is, as it must be, the foundation and framing of the thought process of my witness here. I AM, in identifying as Father / as Son, is setting the teleology (establishing the Alpha and Omega) of Creation in the rock-solid foundation of His own Being [He is the (only) ROCK, and this is His Logos). Creation will (therefore, must) produce its intended fruit : the Body of Christ. Also, in identifying as Father, as Son, He does not cease to be (simply) I AM (Holy Spirit). Again, the Father vis-a-vis Son dynamic of His Being predestines His creative labor to bear the fruit He seeks : children (created i am's) bearing his image and likeness : the Body of Christ.

Stephen>>>Why is it necessary that the creation be wholly other than Him? I don't think that is the intention of the creation at all.<<<

God is Love. The apotheosis of Love is a (life-giving) dynamic between true (ontological) personal (self-conscious) others. This is why our Creator is (has been) willing to suffer all the indignity we have brought to the process of Him (successfully) bringing (truly) other (autonomous / free) created (personal) beings to the joy and glory of existing in His image and likeness.

In His Love...
 

Stephen

Active member
That is not quite my position...because what I'm doing is changing the question that is being asked about the Trinity. Asking how One is Three is the wrong approach because the created “i am” (that we are) cannot wrestle itself free from its native corruption (to be able) to “understand” the aseity of I AM. That is, as a result of having lost the palpable PRESENCE of I AM at its beginning (in the Garden), the created i am defaulted to reifying itself (as THEE center) in its ontology. This corruption, now being the center from which, and around which, our “reasoning” orbits, keeps us continually referring back to our own sense of what it means to be an “i am.” Thus do we invariably delimit I AM in our cogitations about Him.

The (sinful) default state of self-centered-ness is antithetical to our Creator's intention in bringing us into being in that He always intended us to be other-centered beings (God-centered beings). It is for this reason that this apologetic recasts the “question” to why I AM is Trinity

Simply because the Special Revelation (of Scripture) is, as it must be, the foundation and framing of the thought process of my witness here. I AM, in identifying as Father / as Son, is setting the teleology (establishing the Alpha and Omega) of Creation in the rock-solid foundation of His own Being [He is the (only) ROCK, and this is His Logos). Creation will (therefore, must) produce its intended fruit : the Body of Christ. Also, in identifying as Father, as Son, He does not cease to be (simply) I AM (Holy Spirit). Again, the Father vis-a-vis Son dynamic of His Being predestines His creative labor to bear the fruit He seeks : children (created i am's) bearing his image and likeness : the Body of Christ.

As briefly discussed, the quality of objectivity does not inhere, organically, in the closed system that the Cosmos is. Yet the quality of objectivity is key to us being (truly) real free-will beings. If there is not an ontic object / object quality in our existence then we are but robots running a program. That is, we are not autonomous beings who are free to do other than what we “should” do (we are not really free moral agents).

God is Love. The apotheosis of Love is a (life-giving) dynamic between true (ontological) personal (self-conscious) others. This is why our Creator is (has been) willing to suffer all the indignity we have brought to the process of Him (successfully) bringing (truly) other (autonomous / free) created (personal) beings to the joy and glory of existing in His image and likeness.

In His Love...

Yes, I understand that you are changing the question. We agree that the answer to the "how" question is that this reality doesn't support the doctrine being promoted.

In posing the "why" question, you are saying that it is by God's action that we don't understand the trinity. You assert that we did understand the trinity in the garden when he was present with us, but now that he has removed us from his presence, we have reverted to being self centered beings rather than God centered beings and therefore cannot understand the trinity. If it is God's intent that we be centered on him, then his action of removing us from his presence is counter to his goals.

Further, the bible does not describe us as being "truly real free-will beings" and "objectivity" is not a necessary condition described in the bible. The actions of God over the course of the bible indicate the opposite. We are limited by having consequences to our actions, and very limited life spans. We require constant supervision and oversight from God rather than "objectivity".
 

koinonia

New member
Dear Brother,

Stephen>>>Yes, I understand that you are changing the question. We agree that the answer to the "how" question is that this reality doesn't support the doctrine being promoted.<<<

Actually, the reason I have changed the question is because the (scientific) evidence we now have of the true nature of our created reality supports, as to be expected, the revelation we have in the written Word concerning it. Not only this, but it likewise undergirds the “understanding” (1 John 5:20) we have by revelation of Who He IS. The how question is “wrong” only because the Being of God is so transcendently beyond ours that the only way we can KNOW Him is by His own revelation of Himself. In a sense, our puny little corrupted “i am” says to I AM : I too am an “i am” and I just can't see how a such a thing as an “i am” can exist in a true trinitarian state.

We must start with His revealed knowledge and reason accordingly, because we cannot obtain that knowledge from pure (human) reason alone (Isaiah 55: 8-9). Again, we forget that it is simply our place to behold Him in the wonder of Who He says He IS!

There is no pathology, as there is in us, with I AM allowing (suffering) His Being to exist in a “broken” state so that He might create children in His own image. This “brokenness” of His is to filled in (is being filled in), and the Day is coming when Jesus will present Himself with us, His Body, to the Father, and God will be all-in-all (1 Corinthians 15:28).

STEPHEN>>>In posing the "why" question, you are saying that it is by God's action that we don't understand the trinity. If it is God's intent that we be centered on him, then his action of removing us from his presence is counter to his goals.<<<

Again, this is not what I am saying...and I am thankful to have this opportunity to try to make it more obvious. It is our own action that “removed us from his presence” because He told us we would die of we disobeyed Him, and our dying began when we separated [alienated (Colossians 1:21)] ourselves from His Living Presence (John 6:53, 14:6). This seminal act of disobedience (in the beginning “moments”) changed the trajectory of the maturation of the human soul. God suffers this to be so because the soul must learn (experience) that it lives by faithfulness.

Stephen>>>You assert that we did understand the trinity in the garden when he was present with us, but now that he has removed us from his presence, we have reverted to being self centered beings rather than God centered beings and therefore cannot understand the trinity.

More clarification...I am not asserting we understood “the trinity in the garden.” The (newly) created i am was in a inchoate state and what it was going to (be)come (to know) depended on the (simple) choice it made : obedience (God) or disobedience (self).

Stephen>>>Further, the bible does not describe us as being "truly real free-will beings" and "objectivity" is not a necessary condition described in the bible.<<<

Our Creator would not say the following if we were not, objectively, free to will one way or another : “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live...” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Stephen>>>The actions of God over the course of the bible indicate the opposite.<<<

The entire Old Testament documents that even God's chosen people continually failed to choose as He willed they should. There is God's will, and there is Man's will, and they are, objectively, distinct...so much so that Man chose to, and actually did, murder God when He appeared in our midst. There is an abyss (a bottomless emptiness) that separates Creator and created, and it is only God Who can, and did, bridge it.

Stephen>>>We are limited by having consequences to our actions, and very limited life spans. We require constant supervision and oversight from God rather than "objectivity.”<<<

Yes...disobedience in the Garden brought dire consequences, especially the beginning of the dying process.

The way you use “objectivity” here makes me think we are not using the word in the same sense. In my use of it there is no conflict between our need for “constant supervision and oversight from God” and the concept of objectivity. A child is a wholly other being than his parent, that is, he is, objectively, not his parent. All the while the parent provides “constant supervision and oversight.” Love bridges the gap.

In that Love
 
Top