Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Would "anti-social Trinitarians" be "Oneness" if they dropped "Persons" terminology?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Would "anti-social Trinitarians" be "Oneness" if they dropped "Persons" terminology?

    Trinitarian and philosopher William Craig (see Reasonable Faith website) has observed and written about the issues that Anti-Trinitarians face... https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...f-the-trinity/

    Some quotes from his article...

    "Therefore, I shall instead contrast Social Trinitarianism with what one wag has called Anti-Social Trinitarianism. The central commitment of Social Trinitarianism is that in God there are three distinct centers of self-consciousness, each with its proper intellect and will. The central commitment of Anti-Social Trinitarianism is that there is only one God, whose unicity of intellect and will is not compromised by the diversity of persons. Social Trinitarianism threatens to veer into tri-theism; Anti-Social Trinitarianism is in danger of lapsing into Unitarianism." (Brian Leftow, “Anti Social Trinitarianism,” in The Trinity, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 232.)

    "Anti-Social Trinitarians typically look to Latin-speaking theologians like Augustine and Aquinas as their champions. To a considerable extent the appeal to Augustine rests on a misinterpretation which results from taking in isolation his analogies of the Trinity in the human mind, such as the lover, the beloved, and love itself (On the Trinity 8.10.14; 9.2.2) or memory, understanding, and will (or love) (10.11.17-18). Augustine explicitly states that the persons of the Trinity are not identified with these features of God’s mind; rather they are “an image of the Trinity in man” (14.8.11; 15.8.14). “

    "Moreover, to think that the intentional objects of God’s knowing Himself and loving Himself constitute in any sense really distinct persons is wholly implausible. Even if God the Father were a person, and not a mere relation, there is no reason, even in Aquinas’ own metaphysical system, why the Father as understood and loved by Himself would be different persons. The distinction involved here is merely that between oneself as subject (“I”) and as object (“me”). There is no more reason to think that the individual designated by “I”, “me”, and “myself” constitute a plurality of persons in God’s case than in any human being’s case. Anti-Social Trinitarianism seems to reduce to classical Modalism." - William Craig

  • #2
    Craig gives a pretty clear summary of the various views of God. Clearly shows that what some Trins here boldly speak of as "orthodox" is simply one view among many divergent Trinitarian views. He's a Trinitarian so he is not a hostile reviewer of the doctrine.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Neal View Post
      Craig gives a pretty clear summary of the various views of God. Clearly shows that what some Trins here boldly speak of as "orthodox" is simply one view among many divergent Trinitarian views. He's a Trinitarian so he is not a hostile reviewer of the doctrine.
      It is all mud being washed under the bridge. No consideration of "persons" or anything else merged into "Godhead" when God was known generally by all of the first and second gen saints
      as The One True God, the Father only sir.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Neal View Post
        Trinitarian and philosopher William Craig (see Reasonable Faith website) has observed and written about the issues that Anti-Trinitarians face... https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...f-the-trinity/

        Some quotes from his article...

        "Therefore, I shall instead contrast Social Trinitarianism with what one wag has called Anti-Social Trinitarianism. The central commitment of Social Trinitarianism is that in God there are three distinct centers of self-consciousness, each with its proper intellect and will. The central commitment of Anti-Social Trinitarianism is that there is only one God, whose unicity of intellect and will is not compromised by the diversity of persons. Social Trinitarianism threatens to veer into tri-theism; Anti-Social Trinitarianism is in danger of lapsing into Unitarianism." (Brian Leftow, “Anti Social Trinitarianism,” in The Trinity, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 232.)

        "Anti-Social Trinitarians typically look to Latin-speaking theologians like Augustine and Aquinas as their champions. To a considerable extent the appeal to Augustine rests on a misinterpretation which results from taking in isolation his analogies of the Trinity in the human mind, such as the lover, the beloved, and love itself (On the Trinity 8.10.14; 9.2.2) or memory, understanding, and will (or love) (10.11.17-18). Augustine explicitly states that the persons of the Trinity are not identified with these features of God’s mind; rather they are “an image of the Trinity in man” (14.8.11; 15.8.14). “

        "Moreover, to think that the intentional objects of God’s knowing Himself and loving Himself constitute in any sense really distinct persons is wholly implausible. Even if God the Father were a person, and not a mere relation, there is no reason, even in Aquinas’ own metaphysical system, why the Father as understood and loved by Himself would be different persons. The distinction involved here is merely that between oneself as subject (“I”) and as object (“me”). There is no more reason to think that the individual designated by “I”, “me”, and “myself” constitute a plurality of persons in God’s case than in any human being’s case. Anti-Social Trinitarianism seems to reduce to classical Modalism." - William Craig
        William Lane Craig in your url link believes God has three persons but one soul, so it could be argued that even he is modalist.

        " William Lane Craig "
        " A Social Trinitarian model is then presented, according to which God is a soul endowed with three sets of cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood. "
        [^ https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...f-the-trinity/ ]

        But trins see the distinctions/persons as inherent, comparable to a man's interactive conscience, conscious and subconscious ie of one being. With modalists the distinctions are by choice, which makes it role playing, especially since the Father is not affected by the incarnation and thus would inclusively be the Son speaking.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by nothead View Post

          It is all mud being washed under the bridge. No consideration of "persons" or anything else merged into "Godhead" when God was known generally by all of the first and second gen saints
          as The One True God, the Father only sir.
          NO Scripture offered to prove God is The Father ONLY, since NO such Scripture exists.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kampioen View Post

            William Lane Craig in your url link believes God has three persons but one soul, so it could be argued that even he is modalist.

            " William Lane Craig "
            " A Social Trinitarian model is then presented, according to which God is a soul endowed with three sets of cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood. "
            [^ https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...f-the-trinity/ ]

            But trins see the distinctions/persons as inherent, comparable to a man's interactive conscience, conscious and subconscious ie of one being. With modalists the distinctions are by choice, which makes it role playing, especially since the Father is not affected by the incarnation and thus would inclusively be the Son speaking.
            Where do you get this stuff on how you view oneness teaching that should not be labelled because all do not believe the same?

            What can affect God who determines the end from the beginning and wrote the script and participates in it?

            In the script God is always being affected though that is through coming down to the level of man for man's sake. God condescending is because we are earthy and natural and God will work with man on that level but that does nor make God man with man's thinking.

            Now, the same applies to God in the role of the Father and the Son which is God condescending to man's level by bringing Christ into the world.

            We have to spiritually understand when God is condescending or we see God on a natural level with man as God being natural or of the earth.

            We have to discern what God is doing in his roles but they are real and God is speaking all the time not just in the role of the Son. Jesus speaking God's words is God speaking to our spirit or we can not spiritually hear God. However, God speaks to others in the role of the Father to those God gives spiritual insight to hear like Peter who believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

            Jesus is the Word of God who speaks through the Father and the Son because the Word was made flesh.

            However, we are always seeing one person though God is in roles whether it is the Son in the visible form of God or not?

            We do not have to see God physically to see God we just need to understand him because God is Spirit. That to my understanding is seeing God at least figuratively.

            God bless you,

            SeventhDay

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by john wilcox View Post
              NO Scripture offered to prove God is The Father ONLY, since NO such Scripture exists.
              "No other one but he," Mk 12 said by the scribe and affirmed by Jesus, who also said, "This is eternal life, that they know YOU the ONLY True God and that they also know Christ Jesus whom YOU sent."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by nothead View Post

                "No other one but he," Mk 12 said by the scribe and affirmed by Jesus, who also said, "This is eternal life, that they know YOU the ONLY True God and that they also know Christ Jesus whom YOU sent."
                NO mention of The Father in Mark 12. And ONLY in John 17:3 refers to God, NOT to The Father. Also too many excess words in 17:3. AND Jesus Christ, whom you sent. "that they also know" is unescessary. IOW eternal life is to know Father and Son. Can't know one WITHOUT the other.
                Try again,

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by john wilcox View Post
                  NO mention of The Father in Mark 12. And ONLY in John 17:3 refers to God, NOT to The Father. Also too many excess words in 17:3. AND Jesus Christ, whom you sent. "that they also know" is unescessary. IOW eternal life is to know Father and Son. Can't know one WITHOUT the other.
                  Try again,
                  Who is the HE that the scribe said there was no other one compared to then sir? Jesus? Holy Spirit? Father is the only one left in YOUR scenario, director.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by nothead View Post

                    Who is the HE that the scribe said there was no other one compared to then sir? Jesus? Holy Spirit? Father is the only one left in YOUR scenario, director.
                    The HE is God.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by john wilcox View Post
                      The HE is God.
                      So then the scribe in Mk 12 was including Jesus in this "mix," of HIM sir?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by nothead View Post

                        So then the scribe in Mk 12 was including Jesus in this "mix," of HIM sir?
                        The Scribe was simply refering to God and NO particular Person.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          [QUOTE=nothead;n5195770]

                          Deleted post QUOTE]Jews have a BEING in mind when they speak of God, as do Christians.
                          Last edited by Mod9; 04-08-18, 11:35 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kampioen View Post

                            William Lane Craig in your url link believes God has three persons but one soul, so it could be argued that even he is modalist.

                            " William Lane Craig "
                            " A Social Trinitarian model is then presented, according to which God is a soul endowed with three sets of cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood. "
                            [^ https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...f-the-trinity/ ]

                            But trins see the distinctions/persons as inherent, comparable to a man's interactive conscience, conscious and subconscious ie of one being. With modalists the distinctions are by choice, which makes it role playing, especially since the Father is not affected by the incarnation and thus would inclusively be the Son speaking.
                            But similar to what Craig said and what I've emphasized before, "conscience, conscious and subconscious" are not simply "one being" BUT "one person" as well. So, are you prepared to let go of the "persons" terminology? Even Trinitarians often say they don't like the term. Yet, it is the litmus test for heresy. This contradiction is maddening. It's a sign of a basic flaw in the concept. God is not an essential "threeness" of anything, but "GOD IS ONE". It's even possible to have brain damage and not have consciousness, but subconsciousness. Yet, to have Jesus is to have the Father. You see Jesus is one with the Father in way that even your anti-social analogy doesn't do justice to. Why? Because your entire threeness concept isn't workable.


                            There is One God who alone is Holy. This one God alone is an omnipresent Spirit. Holiness identifies his fundamental moral nature. Spirit identifies his inner essence, his non-moral nature. This one God is Creator and is in a genuine relationship with his children as our Father. This one God declared himself visually and verbally, ultimately taking on the form of a genuine man while continuing to exist as omnipresent Holy Spirit as He always has. We know that the believer only has this one Holy Spirit and to have this one Holy Spirit is to have the Father and Son. Why? Because the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. THis is not hard
                            Last edited by Neal; 04-10-18, 10:16 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Neal View Post

                              But similar to what Craig said and what I've emphasized before, "conscience, conscious and subconscious" are not simply "one being" BUT "one person" as well. So, are you prepared to let go of the "persons" terminology? Even Trinitarians often say they don't like the term. Yet, it is the litmus test for heresy. This contradiction is maddening. It's a sign of a basic flaw in the concept. God is not an essential "threeness" of anything, but "GOD IS ONE". It's even possible to have brain damage and not have consciousness, but subconsciousness. Yet, to have Jesus is to have the Father. You see Jesus is one with the Father in way that even your anti-social analogy doesn't do justice to. Why? Because your entire threeness concept isn't workable.


                              There is One God who alone is Holy. This one God alone is an omnipresent Spirit. Holiness identifies his fundamental moral nature. Spirit identifies his inner essence, his non-moral nature. This one God is Creator and is in a genuine relationship with his children as our Father. This one God declared himself visually and verbally, ultimately taking on the form of a genuine man while continuing to exist as omnipresent Holy Spirit as He always has. We know that the believer only has this one Holy Spirit and to have this one Holy Spirit is to have the Father and Son. Why? Because the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. THis is not hard
                              There is NO passage in the Bible that identifies The Holy Spirit as The Father or The Son.
                              He is NOT. End of story.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X