How many persons am I?

[DanielGracely]

I agree that it’s healthy to examine Trinitarian Creeds like the Nicene (or, let me add, Athanasian), to see if they have claimed something unbiblical about God that would then hinder Jews and Muslims from receiving Christ.

Yet, for me, the problem of defining God in modalism or even in trinitarianism (the latter a weaker form of modalism) have remained.

Some years ago, this whole matter came to a head for me when I read some statements by John Piper on Crosswalk.com. He said that God, unlike the rest of us, had a right to glorify Himself. Such statements always bother me. For why should anyone (even God), on the basis of mere chronological priority or omnipotence, be granted a free pass to be egotistical?

But, in fact, when I looked at the Scriptures I saw that God was not at all like Piper described Him. For he [Piper] failed to bring attention to what it means for “God” to glorify “Himself”. For the motive of the Father was that the Son would be glorified, and the motive of the Son was that the Father would be glorified. In other words, none of the Persons of the Godhead are really in it for themselves. (This goes hand in glove with the Son’s statement that he came to serve, not to be served.) Christ even made it clear that he came not on his own, but that his Father sent him. This means Christ did not really desire to come, but that he came in obedience to the Father, along with the motive that the Father would be glorified. Likewise, the Father gave up the Son for the salvation of the world, and so sacrificed his only Begotten. And the Spirit? Well, He speaks not of Himself.” And so there is sacrifice all around.

All this highlights a problem with modalism and trinitarianism. It is that neither of these systems, insofar as they speak of God as “One,” escapes the problem of what becomes God’s implied ego. For although they (trinitarians) seem to mean He is one being; yet they find they cannot admit this, since by the word being they would contradict themselves when saying he is more than one person. And so they retain ambiguous language, which they are very good at. Thus the Athanasian Creed says: “And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.” (Note: I mistakenly attributed this to the Nicene Creed in my prior comment.)

But the problem goes even deeper with modalism. This is because if modalism is true, then God was amoral in eternity past. This is because a singular being, alone in the ‘universe’ in which He comprises all in all with nothing else besides, can be neither selfless nor selfish, since either of these requires an another. In other words, a singular Being cannot be good or bad; He just is.

“Well, so what,” (someone might say). “If God had no moral dimension in eternity past, it makes no difference. At least He wasn’t immoral!” But then the question still begs itself why God, after being alone for countless ages upon ages, would decide to create other persons and thereby enter the moral dimension along with them? Indeed, if that is what happened, what sense do we make of Genesis 1:26? For it tells us that Elohim created man in his image and likeness. But then how could man be considered made in God’s likeness, when God’s defining characteristic was that He existed in a state of amorality for 99.9999999+% of the time?

Furthermore, how do we understand statements by Christ, such as when he said he came not on his own, but that it was his Father who sent him? For according to the normal definition of “sent”, one cannot send one’s self. One can only send another. “Well,” says the modalist, “God means that he sends a different manifestation of himself—e.g., the incarnate instead of the disembodied.” But to define “send” in this way is to make it mean something it has never meant before. And since there are other words that already have the meaning of manifestation, why would God deliberately obscure language? Why wouldn’t Christ have simply said, “I decided to manifest myself in the flesh?” instead of ever saying “I came not on my own, but the One who sent me is true”?

“But,” replies the modalist, “God is not obligated to explain to us why he uses metaphor or metonym.” Well, certainly I would concede that at times God might use metaphor or metonym in plain (not parable-story) instances. But certainly not at the pace required by modalists and Calvinists, both of whom find themselves stuck with all but constantly exchanging the obvious historical meanings of words for ones neither obvious nor historical.

And then there is Luke, saying that when Christ was baptized the Holy Spirit descended in bodily shape, like a dove…”. Now there is a difference in saying that “the Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove,” and saying that “the Spirit descended like a dove in bodily form.” But if the Spirit is descending in bodily shape from heaven, then how can the Christ in situ Incarnate not be omnipresent? I suppose at this point I can expect the modalist to invent additional definitions for “bodily shape” and “omnipresent,” to go along with his definition of “sent.” And so the dance continues.

I have personally found that to explain to unbelievers that the Godhead is three Persons all of whom has sought the glory, not of Himself but of the Others, and Each at enormous expense to Himself, resonates with them. Simply put, they are not used to hearing that. For what can they say? That God is selfish? No, for they realize for the first time there is no room for that argument.

What I wish for, then, is that the Scriptures be transliterated. If in the O.T. Elohim is combined nearly always with the singular verb, then let us have it that way. “In the beginning Gods creates…” Grammatically, that is what is being stated. And let the opinions of the Steve’s and the Dan’s and the Paidon’s of this world be hashed out in the marginal notes at the bottom of the text, or on bible forums like that at TheNarrowPath. (And we’ll assume all have the right motive in doing so.) But for God’s sake—literally—let us leave the Bible alone. The problem is, theologians and translators have simply not had the courage to render Elohim’s word as it is.

[TK]

DG wrote:

“Well, so what,” (someone might say). “If God had no moral dimension in eternity past, it makes no difference. At least He wasn’t immoral!” But then the question still begs itself why God, after being alone for countless ages upon ages, would decide to create other persons and thereby enter the moral dimension along with them? Indeed, if that is what happened, what sense do we make of Genesis 1:26? For it tells us that Elohim created man in his image and likeness. But then how could man be considered made in God’s likeness, when God’s defining characteristic was that He existed in a state of amorality for 99.9999999+% of the time?

I have struggled with the concept of God existing in "eternity past" (as if we draw a line extending infintely in the past and infinitely into the future).

I think the reason is that if God existed infinitely in the past, then how did the time ever arrive when He created everything? In other words, if He existed in the infinite past then an infinite amount of time has to elapse before He could get to the time of creation.

I probably am not explaining this too well because my pea brain can't really comprehend it.

Some on this forum, (Paidion, I think-- help me out Paidion!!) think that Time was created when God created the universe. Now there is simply no way I can imagine such a thing, but apparently scientists say the same thing. So if space/time was the first thing created, then God did not exist in the infinite past before creation because there was no "before." But that is just a tad over my head to even try to comprehend.

TK

[DanielGracely]

Hi TK,
Questions about time are difficult, but at least I’ll offer an opinion. The following is a section from a book I’ve sporadically worked on since March, and which I’ve just received today from the printer. (Like my anti-Calvinist book, I hope to soon set it up as a free online read.) Here I describe the kind of dilemma we face when trying to explain time, which ends with an antinomy (i.e., a contradiction either real or apparent). The prophecy I’m referring to is Daniel 9:25-26a, which predicts the time of the Messiah’s death. I realize as an Open Theist you won’t agree with everything here. But perhaps something in it will provoke further thought. Incidentally, I’ve seen a lot of discussion on this forum about what “eternal” means. I personally follow the view of Prof. Carl Conrad (Prof. Emeritus of Classical Languages, Washington Univ., St. Louis, and moderator of B-Greek online) who stated his opinion that the Greeks tended to think of time as infinite, whereas the Jews thought of it as a succession of ages. The point I take away from this is not that Jews thought time had a beginning, but rather that they viewed time as receding linearly into the past, and proceeding linearly into the future. I’ll admit that when God says he is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, I find it hard to understand. But I think maybe God means that nothing precedes or exceeds Him. I personally think time is an attribute of God, since I believe the Persons of the Godhead have always had the ability to choose to agree or disagree with each other, which implies past, present, and future aspects of time. Anyhow, here is the section from the book. (BTW, the fellow I mention whose name is Walt was a waiter at a restaurant I had an hour-long conversation with back in March.):

Now, the chief reason biblical prophecy is important is because it shows the superiority of the Bible over other views. However audacious that claim may seem to certain readers here, I urge patience while I attempt to prove this. The reason I believe the Bible is superior is because its prophecies show that only God knows what will happen in the future. Others who disbelieve the Bible may argue their viewpoints, and argue them well. But really they are merely showing consistency of argument, which is capable of any viewpoint. Indeed, no one can one-upmanship his opponent merely by consistent argument. For example, if someone were to say that every word symbol in speech and writing actually represents nothing, that even the whole of the universe is nothing—‘materially’ or ‘immaterially’—including his ‘readers’ and ‘listeners’ and even ‘himself,’ etc., there is hardly an argument that can be brought against him. It is not that he is right. It is that no argument can prove his consistency false to him. And so it is possible for him to verbally refute every counter-argument. And so if the Christian hopes to help him, his ‘ace-in-the-hole,’ so to speak, is an appeal to the uniqueness of biblical prophecy.

Furthermore, and at the risk of sounding obvious, note that many of the prophecies of the Bible are expressed in normal language. Therefore it should be expected that it will be normal, not mystical, language, which generally will also reveal details about the nature of God. For example, when in my conversation Walt claimed that Deity by definition is static perfection (the Divine Self in situ), and that therefore Deity would have no purpose to ‘move’ (i.e., change), e.g., to desire the repentance and worship of humans, I countered by pointing out that this is not a biblical view, but rather Greek. Moreover, I explained that because biblical prophecy is given in normal language and proves the superiority of Christianity, normal language, too, must be resorted to in matters of description about God. And God, or the Logos (i.e., the Rationale which preceded the world) is not as the Greeks imagined—immovable, impassive, impenetrable in transcendence and therefore essentially impersonal. Yet the Greek view is a formidable one. In short, then, while I could not tell Walt he was wrong because of inconsistency in his argument, I could point out that his view was inferior, because the Deity who proved himself true and superior through fulfilled prophecy declares false all other viewpoints other than those in accord with his own.

The appeal to biblical prophecy becomes even more important when one considers the limits of logic every ideology, philosophy, and theology runs up against, Christianity included. This fact was discovered by German philosopher and Einstein contemporary, Kurt Gödel. He proved that every ideology contained at some point axiomatic assumptions that were logically unprovable and thus taken on faith. For example, here is a famous problem in Greek philosophy which challenges Christian faith-presuppositions. It is one of Zeno’s paradoxes; here is its essence:

If between any two points of time there are infinite points of time, then change cannot happen, and therefore history is an illusion.

Christian theologians disagree with Zeno’s conclusion, though they hold to the antinomy of a God who has no beginning nor end—which implies infinity of time—yet a God who also acts in history. In other words, if we express Time in terms of the movement of a football player running from end zone to end zone, we can say he runs the first 50 yards (half the distance) in 1/2 x, the next 25 yards (half the remaining distance) in 1/4 x, and so forth. But adding up all these fractions will never quite reach the number one. In other words, the football player will never reach the end zone if there are infinite points of time. But the problem of Time can be thought of in smaller distances as well. We can express the first step of the football player as 1/2 x + 1/4 x + 1/8 x + 1/16 x, etc., without ever reaching the number one. In other words, the football player never finishes the first step. Even so, the first 100th part of the first step can be expressed as 1/2 x + 1/4 x + 1/8 x + 1/16 x, etc., showing the football player never even completes the hundredth part of his first step. And so forth. The result of this approach is that happening never happens. Yet in the real world we know that football players do take steps and do reach end zones. This is because of the law of multiple proportions, which rejects the idea of infinite points between any two points, and accepts that 1/2 x + 1/2 x will equal 1. So on the one hand Time seems to be infinite (because Number is assumed infinite) and therefore would deny motion to objects, yet common sense tells us there must be a fraction so small toward the end of the ‘infinite’ geometric series that it doesn’t really exist, so that the fractions can add up to the number one, enabling motion. Now, when it comes to God, the Christian believes Deity has no beginning or end. So that would seem that God’s age is infinite in number, which according to Zeno’s paradox would make motion impossible even for God. Yet fulfilled prophecy shows God does act in history. So on the one hand Time seems infinite, yet on the other hand Time seems finite, since history is accommodated.

This antinomy in Christianity of a God who existed in eternity past, yet predicates in linear time, is an inherent tension in Christianity. And no thinker has been able to explain this conundrum logically, though some have made absurd appeals to God being “outside time,” etc., which denies language (and therefore, of course, language in the Bible) its normally understood properties, since the Bible always describes God in verbs of tense. In other words, the Bible student appeals to normal language not just in matters of common-sense interpretation, but also, ironically, in establishing which antinomies are biblical, and which are not. In short, the few antinomies in the Bible (I count at least two, another being God’s non-determinative foreknowledge of human choice) are the exceptions that prove the (general) rule of normal language.

Non-Christian views, too, run into equally benumbing antinomies. The materialist (for the sake of this discussion, I include here as ‘material’ unseen things such as gravity, magnetism, air, etc.) claims there is nothing immaterial to the universe, and that even thought, emotion, and will, are somehow material in nature. Yet inevitably materialists behave discriminatory toward ‘materiality,’ proving they don’t really believe what they confess. As Hindu-trained, turned-Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, observes about the materialist’s hypocrisy: “Even in India we look both ways before crossing the street: For it is either the bus, or it is me; it cannot be both!” Zacharias is saying that the materialist shouldn’t care whether or not the bus hits him, since he claims materiality is all there is; therefore to assign uniqueness to some aspect of materiality on the basis of x, y, and z geo-physical coordinates would be absurd. And so, no materialist has been able to solve this antinomy in his system, anymore than the Christian has in his.

Now, again, the point in all this is to show that the only way out of this morass of proving which view is superior, since all views maintain consistency of verbal argument except for the few and necessary antinomous axioms each view entails, is to concede the supernatural origin of that body of writings which contains fulfilled prophecies. For if One exists with the Power to know the future, then it seems likely the same One has the power to judge others according to His own standards.

[TK]

DG wrote:

I realize as an Open Theist you won’t agree with everything here.

Just to clarify, I am not an Open Theist, although I can sympathize with why some people are. I don't really know what I am, to tell the truth. Probably some mixture of a lot of things!

Yeah, this is pretty deep stuff. Maybe we will all have a handle on it some day.

TK

[jriccitelli]

Daniel wrote; "But then how could man be considered made in God’s likeness, when God’s defining characteristic was that He existed in a state of amorality for 99.9999999+% of the time? "
(I think this is a deep, but great argument against Modalism)

"But certainly not at the pace required by modalists and Calvinists, both of whom find themselves stuck with all but constantly exchanging the obvious historical meanings of words for ones neither obvious nor historical"
(I couldn't agree more)

"And since there are other words that already have the meaning of manifestation, why would God deliberately obscure language?" (My feelings exactly! God, I think created our ability for language in His image, I mean that it is 'logical'.
And normal enough so that it can, for our purposes, define what He has revealed about himself)

"I have personally found that to explain to unbelievers that the Godhead is three Persons all of whom has sought the glory, not of Himself but of the Others, and Each at enormous expense to Himself, resonates with them"
(I like this explanation!)

“In the beginning Gods creates…” Grammatically, that is what is being stated.
(I think this is true, not to give credit to the 'Book of Abraham' (Joking), but, I think Jewish thinkers and translators can only be correct in balancing the word Elohim with other revelation in order to not confuse' (?) readers, so as to have later context define Elohim, no? It does seem wrong)

TK correctly points out a common argument; "So if space/time was the first thing created, then God did not exist in the infinite past before creation because there was no "before." (TK)

All I have done is read a few books, but I have come to the conclusion that too many have the impression that time is a 'thing'. Time is simply a 'measurement'. This drives me crazy because it is so often spoken of as if time has 'mass'. Time has no 'independent existence'. Just as there is no such thing as an inch or an ounce, there is no such 'thing' as a 'minute'.
Time can be explained by the statement; Time does not happen if nothing moves.
This can explain that God existed prior to time because if there was no creation to 'move' no time could be measured.
Now, since God is Spirit then does Spirit 'move'? It may be that God's Spirit can move, but not be measured, at least by 'time'. Maybe Gods movement could be measured in some other way i.e. length, weight, but still God could perceivably move outside the 'atomic' creation in a way that is not 'measurable' in a way that we know. Does Spirit have mass?
This could allow God to also stop creation, and time, move in it, and start it again. I think this helps me understand the phrase "He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End"
(I am an Open theist, who is open to a little determinism)

Daniel also said; ...I think time is an attribute of God
(This also fits with; God As 'Creator' is an attribute, time is a necessary aspect of creation)
...I explained that because biblical prophecy is given in normal language and proves the superiority of Christianity (This is a great point, and why the Vedas are inferior, and in a similar sense why it is I love Paul's writing over lofty Greek rhetoric)
...If between any two points of time there are infinite points of time, then change cannot happen, and therefore history is an illusion.
(This would be solved by stating that we are dividing 'something' with time, therefore 'something' exists between whatever two points. The 'something' is not really being divided, time is divided but time is not the 'thing')
In the same sense that time is relative so is distance. Interestingly time is only a measurement, and it is being measured by another measurement, in a sense it could be circular reasoning. (i dont know why this scripture comes to mind, God hates unjust measurements)

I got to hurry so I didn't get to my point. I do hold to Steves 'lemonade' mixture theory though, i like that explaination. Are we not 'also' going to be 'one' with one another, in the Image of Him... cant finish must go...