Love and the Trinity

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3114
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Love and the Trinity

Post by darinhouston » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:41 am

mattrose wrote:
steve7150 wrote:Speaking for just myself i can't fathom how three divine beings always existing can be defined as anything other then three gods hence Polytheism. I would submit that since the Father always existed and since the Father "is love" that by default love always existed. Out of this love by extension is the desire to share love with others and at some moment in the distant past before the universe was created, came the Spirit of God and the Word of God out of the Father himself.
Anyway this is just my opinion to try to make everything make sense to myself.
Just as you can't see how 3 divine beings always existing is inseparable from polytheism... I have a hard time seeing how one being existing without relationship can have love as a core characteristic.
Matt, is creativity also a core characteristic of God? What about holiness?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Love and the Trinity

Post by mattrose » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:52 am

With my initial disclaimers intact, I am suggesting that love alone is the core characteristic of God. God's love led to creation (creativity). God's love dictates that God wants what's best for creatures (holiness). The attributes that flow out of God's love help us to define what love really consists of.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3114
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Love and the Trinity

Post by darinhouston » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:52 am

Don't you agree that to the same extent that if His core is Love and hence requires an object of that love, that even if creativity naturally flows from that love that the object of the creativity is likewise requiring of an object for that creativity? Due to the eternality of God, your philosophical argument for the multiple personhood would seem to apply to creation and require it's eternal existence. Tying holiness to how the creation should act seems arbitrary. If Holiness means "separateness" then that would imply the need for an "other" for "separateness" to have any meaning. I may not be expressing this well, but I think reductionism along these lines defeats the philosophical argument for the Trinity. I just don't buy it (the philosophical argument, that is).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Love and the Trinity

Post by Paidion » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:32 am

Steve7150 wrote:You may be right but why do you think the begetting of the Son marked the beginning of time? Also why do you think the universe was created immediately afterwards? How do you know God didn't create other universes or other things before this one?
Scientists think this universe is expanding at the speed of light and the bible may affirm this therefore that would mean there is empty space outside this universe. Empty space does not sound like much, but it is something that can hold an increasingly growing universe which may mean God created something material in addition to this universe.
1. Steve, I think the begetting of the Son marked the beginning of time because:
a. I believe the early Christians were correct in affirming that never was a time when the Son did not exist, while also believing in His begetting as a single act.
b. It is consistent with love having always been exchanged between the Father and the Son.

2. I think the universe was created immediately afterward because the Father and the Son wanted other beings with whom to fellowship. So why wait a million years?

3. Using "universe" in the sense that it is the total of all physical reality, there can be only one universe.

4. What does "empty space" mean? Space didn't need to be created. It's not a material. What we call "space" is but a measurement of distance between objects. So when God through Jesus created the universe, then there had to be distance between celestial objects and therefore space. You might compare this to the construction of an equilateral triangle. If you construct such a triangle, immediately an equi-angular triangle "comes into existence."

So, if the universe is finite, it is meaningless to speak of "space" outside the universe. However, if the universe is expanding, there will be corresponding space.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Love and the Trinity

Post by mattrose » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:45 am

darinhouston wrote:Don't you agree that to the same extent that if His core is Love and hence requires an object of that love, that even if creativity naturally flows from that love that the object of the creativity is likewise requiring of an object for that creativity? Due to the eternality of God, your philosophical argument for the multiple personhood would seem to apply to creation and require it's eternal existence.
You're asking a good question, here, but I don't agree. I agree that God (and by that word 'God' I mean, most often 'The Trinity,' though I sometimes will use the same term to describe the Father or the Son or the Spirit) is love and hence requires an object of that love (that is after all, my argument!), but the object of that love is within God's-self.

Pure love, as God is, wants to create. It has no necessity to create. Love is never a forced thing. It is chosen.

My wife & I love each other. But our love wouldn't necessarily be lessened if we had decided not to have children. We wanted to have children (And God blessed us with 2 so far). But it was not forced. And it was not essential to our loving relationship.
Tying holiness to how the creation should act seems arbitrary. If Holiness means "separateness" then that would imply the need for an "other" for "separateness" to have any meaning. I may not be expressing this well, but I think reductionism along these lines defeats the philosophical argument for the Trinity. I just don't buy it (the philosophical argument, that is).
Yeah, I'm not exactly sure I understand the objection here. You seem to be saying that for holiness to exist there MUST be an OTHER. I agree. That is what I'm saying. Holiness is not a core characteristic of God, in my view. Holiness is the loving response to a fallen creation.

Thank you for the feedback. I did not imagine you'd be one convinced by my argument. Indeed, most of the responders are the very people I was pretty sure would object :) That being said, the argument seems self-evident to me. The flaws you seem to see do not suggest themselves to me. My purpose for posting was not primarily to persuade, but to find holes in my argument. Your feedback has helped me sharpen my thoughts, thanks!

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Love and the Trinity

Post by steve7150 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:10 pm

1. Steve, I think the begetting of the Son marked the beginning of time because:
a. I believe the early Christians were correct in affirming that never was a time when the Son did not exist, while also believing in His begetting as a single act.
b. It is consistent with love having always been exchanged between the Father and the Son.








OK Paidion but what does the word "begetting" in this context mean to you?

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3114
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Love and the Trinity

Post by darinhouston » Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:49 pm

mattrose wrote:
darinhouston wrote:Don't you agree that to the same extent that if His core is Love and hence requires an object of that love, that even if creativity naturally flows from that love that the object of the creativity is likewise requiring of an object for that creativity? Due to the eternality of God, your philosophical argument for the multiple personhood would seem to apply to creation and require it's eternal existence.
You're asking a good question, here, but I don't agree. I agree that God (and by that word 'God' I mean, most often 'The Trinity,' though I sometimes will use the same term to describe the Father or the Son or the Spirit) is love and hence requires an object of that love (that is after all, my argument!), but the object of that love is within God's-self.

Pure love, as God is, wants to create. It has no necessity to create. Love is never a forced thing. It is chosen.

My wife & I love each other. But our love wouldn't necessarily be lessened if we had decided not to have children. We wanted to have children (And God blessed us with 2 so far). But it was not forced. And it was not essential to our loving relationship.
Tying holiness to how the creation should act seems arbitrary. If Holiness means "separateness" then that would imply the need for an "other" for "separateness" to have any meaning. I may not be expressing this well, but I think reductionism along these lines defeats the philosophical argument for the Trinity. I just don't buy it (the philosophical argument, that is).
Yeah, I'm not exactly sure I understand the objection here. You seem to be saying that for holiness to exist there MUST be an OTHER. I agree. That is what I'm saying. Holiness is not a core characteristic of God, in my view. Holiness is the loving response to a fallen creation.

Thank you for the feedback. I did not imagine you'd be one convinced by my argument. Indeed, most of the responders are the very people I was pretty sure would object :) That being said, the argument seems self-evident to me. The flaws you seem to see do not suggest themselves to me. My purpose for posting was not primarily to persuade, but to find holes in my argument. Your feedback has helped me sharpen my thoughts, thanks!
I don't understand how you can think that god is love as a core characteristic without also believing that he is holy in the same sense. Is there a scriptural basis for this?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Love and the Trinity

Post by Paidion » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:02 pm

OK Paidion but what does the word "begetting" in this context mean to you?
The Greek word rendered as "beget" by the King James translators is "γενναω" (gennaO), a word from which we get the English word "generate" (or else we get it from the Latin "generatus" which is either derived from the Greek or both Greek and Latin derive it from some common root). The word "γενναω" is used in the geneology of Matthew 1, where Abraham begat Isaac, etc. (or one could say that Abraham generated Isaac).

When we beget or generate children, our children are human like us. We do not create them. When we create a picture, or building, or whatever, the thing created is unlike us and is not human.

God begat or generated His only-begotten Son as His first act. His son was divine like God. "He is the exact image of God's essence." (Heb. 1:3). God did not create His Son. Animals, trees, planets, stars, etc. which God created are unlike Him. They are not divine. (Although it is true that man, created in God's image, IS like Him in some respects.)

Interestingly enough, Jesus used this word with Nicodemus when He said, "You must be begotten again," or "You must be generated again," or "You must be regenerated." He did NOT say, "You must be born again," as is commonly thought. My view is that when we are regenerated, it is analogous to conception in the womb. It is only the beginning of life. Our lifetime of service to Christ is analogous to the growth of the baby in the womb, and our completion as children of God occurs in the resurrection, when we are born into the resurrection. This is our great hope. Paul said, " If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die'.”
(1 Cor 15:32)

For whom He foreknew, He also pre-appointed to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Rom. 8:29)

Here the word is "firstborn" nor "firstbegotten". In what way was Jesus "the firstborn among many brethren"? He was the first to have a true resurrection, to have an earthly body raised immortal. (All who are said to have been "raised from the dead" previous to Jesus were only resuscitated. They all died a second time.)

The "many brethren" will be all of His disciples whom He will "raise up at the last day." (John 6:40,44,54). And I understand Paul to say that it is necessary to be conformed to the image of the Son in order to be among these brethren.Thus when the many brethren are reborn into the resurrection, they will rejoice in Christ, but also in each other!

For what is our hope or joy or crown of rejocing in the presence of our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you? (1Thess. 2:19)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Love and the Trinity

Post by mattrose » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:51 pm

darinhouston wrote:
mattrose wrote:
darinhouston wrote:Don't you agree that to the same extent that if His core is Love and hence requires an object of that love, that even if creativity naturally flows from that love that the object of the creativity is likewise requiring of an object for that creativity? Due to the eternality of God, your philosophical argument for the multiple personhood would seem to apply to creation and require it's eternal existence.
You're asking a good question, here, but I don't agree. I agree that God (and by that word 'God' I mean, most often 'The Trinity,' though I sometimes will use the same term to describe the Father or the Son or the Spirit) is love and hence requires an object of that love (that is after all, my argument!), but the object of that love is within God's-self.

Pure love, as God is, wants to create. It has no necessity to create. Love is never a forced thing. It is chosen.

My wife & I love each other. But our love wouldn't necessarily be lessened if we had decided not to have children. We wanted to have children (And God blessed us with 2 so far). But it was not forced. And it was not essential to our loving relationship.
Tying holiness to how the creation should act seems arbitrary. If Holiness means "separateness" then that would imply the need for an "other" for "separateness" to have any meaning. I may not be expressing this well, but I think reductionism along these lines defeats the philosophical argument for the Trinity. I just don't buy it (the philosophical argument, that is).
Yeah, I'm not exactly sure I understand the objection here. You seem to be saying that for holiness to exist there MUST be an OTHER. I agree. That is what I'm saying. Holiness is not a core characteristic of God, in my view. Holiness is the loving response to a fallen creation.

Thank you for the feedback. I did not imagine you'd be one convinced by my argument. Indeed, most of the responders are the very people I was pretty sure would object :) That being said, the argument seems self-evident to me. The flaws you seem to see do not suggest themselves to me. My purpose for posting was not primarily to persuade, but to find holes in my argument. Your feedback has helped me sharpen my thoughts, thanks!
I don't understand how you can think that god is love as a core characteristic without also believing that he is holy in the same sense. Is there a scriptural basis for this?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don't quite understand your concern. I already expressed a sense in which I believe holiness is bound-up in God's loving nature. Then you started talking about holiness more in terms of set-apartness from sin, so I expressed that that aspect of His holiness is derivative. I am completely fine with saying that God's core characteristic is 'holy love'

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3114
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Love and the Trinity

Post by darinhouston » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:05 am

mattrose wrote:I don't quite understand your concern. I already expressed a sense in which I believe holiness is bound-up in God's loving nature. Then you started talking about holiness more in terms of set-apartness from sin, so I expressed that that aspect of His holiness is derivative. I am completely fine with saying that God's core characteristic is 'holy love'
It's not a concern -- but, I don't understand your premise. Your premise is that the core characteristic of God is that of Love. I agree it's a characteristic, but one among many (perhaps the most defining, but not exhaustively defining or even that from which all other characteristics derive). At least, I don't find Scripture taking such a clear position about its uniqueness as a core characteristic from which others derive. I find many characteristics used to help us understand God's nature. Scripture says God is Love. But, it also says God is Holy. BTW, I didn't define "Holy" as separate from "sin" -- just separate (from everything) -- it could be seen as "otherness" in every way. You have taken the position that Holiness is derived from Love, but I don't see any basis for the position. Most of these characteristics have meaning only in relation to His creation -- we don't know how to understand His nature apart from Creation, and I think we're just not expected to. Just because the notion that "God is love" makes no sense (to us) outside of having "someone" to love, His creative nature likewise makes no sense without creation and his "otherness" makes no sense except as it pertains to "others." That doesn't mean love has to have always existed any more than Creation (or "others) need to have existed eternally. I see the characteristic of Love as what principally defines how He relates to Creation -- I don't see anything as suggesting it has meaning outside of that relation (thus necessitating a person to love before Creation). This just seems like philosophical twisting and turning to me.

I have to say also that Paidion's position that "Jesus was begotten but always existed because always only began with his begetting" just makes my head hurt. I can't define "always" or "eternal" from a point in time without realizing that there was "something" or "some time" before that -- but, then again if time hadn't begun, then that makes no sense. I'm sorry, but my mind isn't capable of that concept. To me, time and causality are something only having meaning in Neutonian physics within this time-space continuum and I have no problem accepting that there are spiritual or even extra-dimensional realities, all of which God pervades and therefore the notion of time is irrelevant to Him and once we start to try and understand something outside these known dimensions we're out of luck. I'm reminded again of a book "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" where a line tries to understand a sphere (and so on).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”