Can God do all things?

[Guest]

I'm about trinitied out... It's such a complicated subject so it is incredibly time consuming to discuss.

I don't think the trinity is that complicated a concept. It's just complicated to explain coherently. That's because there are no good analogs to it. If there were, it would be easy to understand.

I've never heard a trinitarian attempt to use an analogy for it without introducing the caveat that the analogy is no good, even before they introduce it. This is because, inevitably, the analogy sheds light on the difficulties involved in the very concept it's attempting to illustrate.

To my thinking, that ought to be clue that something's amis.

FWIW my friend, I'm about trinitied out too, and, at this point, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere.

Feel free to have the last word.... for the time being

Take care man,

Perry

[Guest]

If Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are each logically equivalent to God, then by defintion they are logically equivalent to each other

You can't maintain that there is a disinction, and simultaneously maintain that each of them are exactly equal to the same thing.

Why x2?

Feel free to have the last word.... for the time being

Perhaps if I understood this whole "logically equivilent" thing better I would think otherwise. By "otherwise" , I mean that I would either stop believing in the trinity, or I would stop saying that they are all "logically equivilent" to God. For now, I'm afraid I don't grasp your argument.

I asked you to explain your point, and you have made above, what appear to me, to just be more assertions of the point I was asking for clarification about!

I'm afraid I've made my case. That's the best I can offer.



God bless brother,

[Guest]

Perhaps if I understood this whole "logically equivilent" thing better I would think otherwise.

Okay, you lured me in for one more try.

Two things are logically equivalent if everything that is true of one, is also true of the other. Moreover, everything that is false of the one, must also be false of the other. (This is just another way of saying the same thing, since statements can always be reworded to form a negation.)

So, Jesus and God are logically equivalent, if and only if, everything that is true of God is also true of Jesus. If anything, even one thing, is true for one of them that is not true of the other, then they are not logically equivalent.

Remember, we need only find one difference to prove they are different.

Here are some statements that suggest logical equivalence between Jesus and God.

God always tells the truth. True of Jesus.
God is immortal. True of Jesus.
God is loving, kind, gracious, merciful. All true of Jesus.

Now consider the assertion of trinitarianism… the zeroth axiom.

God is a trinity.

Is this true of Jesus? Is Jesus three persons?

The trinity doctrine says “no”. He is but one person of the trinity.

So by, trinitarianism, logically, if God is trinity, then Jesus is NOT God.

But Trinitarian doctrine denies this and asserts that Jesus is God.

In other words, trinitarianism is logically inconsistent.

Perry

[Guest]

What your argument comes down to is, "Jesus is not God, because He is not the Father, and He is not the Holy Spirit".

That's like saying "The past is not time, because it is not the future, and it is not the present".

Let's look at your proposition, using the analogy of time, which is a trinity of sorts, in that it is one in one sense and three in another. The bolded statements are not meant to be exact quotes, because I substituted "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", for "trinity" in a few spots to make the comparison clearer.


God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Time is the past, present and future.

Is this true of Jesus? Is Jesus the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Is this true of the past? Is the past the "past, present and future"?

The trinity doctrine says “no”. He is but one person of the trinity.

Some say no, and that the past is only one aspect of the "past, present and future".

So by, trinitarianism, logically, if God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then Jesus is NOT God.

So logicially, if time is the past, present and future, the the past is NOT time (because it's not all three).

But Trinitarian doctrine denies this and asserts that Jesus is God.

But x denies this and asserts that the past is time.

In other words, trinitarianism is logically inconsistent.

In other words, the concept of time is logically inconsistent.

Now this obviously makes no sense. The past does not cease being time, because it is not the present and future. Of course the past is time.

Where this leaves us logically, is with the statement that the past is not the present and future, but is still time.

Likewise, the Son, does not cease being God, becasue He is not the Father and Holy Spirit.

This would leave us with the statement that the Son is not the Father and the Holy Spirit, but is still God.

How this works out as far as the exact nature of God, I don't know. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, or just not getting it, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for trinitarianism.

God bless,

[Guest]

Your illustration makes my point.

If time is past, present, and future, then the past is NOT time. It is the past. It is a subset of time. It is a division of time.

Does the trinity doctrine say that Jesus is a subset of God or that He is a division of God? If it does, then I have totally misunderstood what it is that the trinity doctrine is trying to assert.

Where this leaves us logically, is with the statement that the past is not the present and future, but is still time.

No it doesn't. By your definition of time as past present and future, this does not logically follow at all.

The past is not time. It is a subset of time... by your own definition.

Perry

[Guest]

Does the trinity doctrine say that Jesus is a subset of God or that He is a division of God? If it does, then I have totally misunderstood what it is that the trinity doctrine is trying to assert.

I would say "aspect" as opposed to "subset" or "division".

For instance, my soul and body are not two divisions in my being, but are rather two aspects of it.

None the less, being an aspect of time, does not disqualify the past from being time.

The same for Jesus.

God bless,

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

Time is the past, present and future.
...
None the less, being an aspect of time, does not disqualify the past from being time.

All I can do at this point is respectfully disagree. Something cannot be that of which is only one aspect.

God bless,

Perry

[Guest]

Incidentally, you may or may not have read what the wiki says about the logical conerency of the trinity, but it seems directly applicable to our discussion.

I'm not sure what Peter Geach means by "always sortal".

If you, or anyone who might be eavesdroping on our converastion, knows of a good book, or good lectures on this topic, please point me in the right direction. I have listened to Steve's lectures several times, (both the one in the stand-alone nature of God series, and also the one that was included as part of the 6 week intensive discipleship program.)

And once again I want to express my sincere appreciation for the effort you have put into this discussion. I hope I haven't sounded overly confrontational (something I have a tendency to do).

One might suppose that, having argued so staunchly against the trinity doctrine, I have my own particular belief which I think does a better job of synthesizing the biblical data. That's not true.

It may be that I am an unorthodox trinitarian myself (similar to what the LDS teaches), or that I'm ambivilant... I'm just not sure what exactly to believe on the subject. That's why I'm working so hard to sort it out, and why I appreciate your effort so much.

God bless,
Perry

[Guest]

All I can do at this point is respectfully disagree. Something cannot be that of which is only one aspect.

I agree to disagree.

[Guest]

Incidentally, you may or may not have read what the wiki says about the logical conerency of the trinity, but it seems directly applicable to our discussion.

I'll check this out. I also recomment reading the NT Wright paper that Rick linked to above. I started reading it yesterday, and it's great. He talks about how the Jews used "incarnational language", and were never concerned with the "numerical nature" of God. The question didn't come up. It's great.

And once again I want to express my sincere appreciation for the effort you have put into this discussion. I hope I haven't sounded overly confrontational (something I have a tendency to do).

No problem. Likewise.

I have listened to Steve's lectures several times, (both the one in the stand-alone nature of God series, and also the one that was included as part of the 6 week intensive discipleship program.)

I think that Steve's lectures are good. I like that he doesn't go where I've attempted to go when discussing the nature of God (which is futher than scripture).

I think in the future, I will refuse to answer questions that I do not have sufficient scriptural data to understand fully. Much like what I now do concerning God's foreknowledge.

It may be that I am an unorthodox trinitarian myself (similar to what the LDS teaches),

The LDS doctrine blatently contradicts what God has stated explicitly in scripture. Namely, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD"

Unless they know something that God doesn't.

..."Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Is 44:8)

I'm just not sure what exactly to believe on the subject. That's why I'm working so hard to sort it out, and why I appreciate your effort so much.

I pray that the Lord's Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth. And take me along while He's at it!

God bless brother,