Can God do all things?

[_Derek]

So it seems apparent that the word "God" is used in a different sense when saying "The Word was God" than it is when saying "The Word was with God".

Hey Paidion,

I can't say that I have a problem with John 1:1-2 being interpreted this way.

However, I don't think that this shows that Jesus is not "deity" in the same way that the Father is "deity".

It doesn't bother me to see "God" used to mean " the divine nature" in one sense, to any one person in the trinity in another, or the whole of the trinity in another. I've been saying this all along. I don't think that a different sense equates with a different definition altogether.

edit: Perhaps I should state more clearly, that I do not think that "God" always means mere "deity" when speaking of Christ. But also "God" in the "one God" sense. Or to put it another way, He is deity in the exact same way that the Father is. But He's not the Father.

[_Derek]

Three persons can not be God and yet still be one God because the math does'nt add up.

Steve,


Three God's cannot be one God, because that is obviously contradictory. Three persons, cannot be one person, for the same reason. But "three persons" being "one God" is different altogether. Because "person" is not being used in the same sense as "God".

I really don't want to debate this though, because it's been covered in this thread a good ways back. If you would like to respond to some of the things I have posted in regards to it, that would be fine. But for the sake of simply not having much time, I won't be able to say it all agian.

God bless!

[Guest]

A few Scripture passages to throw into the mix:

Exodus 3:13-15

13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. [emphasis added]

and


John 8:48-59

48 The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” 49 Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.[emphasis added]

Now why did they pick up those stones again? Oh yeah, I remember.....Jesus claimed to be I AM.

In Christ,

Haas

[_Derek]

Hi Haas,

It's not the deity of Christ that we're discussing. It's more along the lines of "Is the Trinity Logical".

Everyone, that I'm aware of, on this thread thinks that Jesus is divine, though they may have slightly different ideas as to exactly what that means.


God bless,

[Guest]

Derek,

You wrote:

It's not the deity of Christ that we're discussing. It's more along the lines of "Is the Trinity Logical".

Are we to try and fit the nature God into a "logical box"? Especially human logic?

Did you get that info you asked me about?

Blessings in Christ,

Haas

[_Derek]

Derek,

You wrote:

It's not the deity of Christ that we're discussing. It's more along the lines of "Is the Trinity Logical".

Are we to try and fit the nature God into a "logical box"? Especially human logic?

Did you get that info you asked me about?

Blessings in Christ,

Haas

Yes I got the info. Thanks brother.

Re: "human logic".

It's interesting that a Calvinist, (many of whom are presuppositional), would speak of "human logic" as if there is more than one system of logic.

We've already talked at length about this idea in this thread.

It is impossible for God to break the rules of logic.

Even by making the statement "God can break the rules of logic" one would be showing, (by logical extension), that He can't.

One would be, in effect, saying that the statements "God can break the rules of logic" and "God cannot break the rules of logic" are two propositions that cannot be true at the same time for God, and are thus appealing to the law of non-contradiction. It's self refuting.

Now you havn't said that He could, of course, but I thought I would go ahead and put that out there in case you were, so we don't have to cover it again. (plus I think it's kinda neat!).

I'm actually not trying to fit God's nature into anything. I am merely defending the trinity doctrine against charges of it being illogical. The perfect God could not be illogical, so if it could be conclusively shown that the trinity doctrine is illogical, it would be false. Of course, I don't think that this has been accomplished, nor do I think that it can be!

Looking forward to your thoughts on the subject, if you care to join in!


God bless!

[Guest]

Derek,

I enjoy studying and using logic (especially in apologetics), but was primarily pointing out that God is so "other" that He ultimately can't be put in a box. The more I "see" of God in the Scriptures, the more I must surrender to Him what my finite mind can truly know.

you wrote:

It's interesting that a Calvinist, (many of whom are presuppositional),

Yes, you are correct.

The key discriminator of this school is that it maintains that the Christian apologist must assume the truth of the supernatural revelation contained in the Bible (that is, the Christian worldview) because there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian, and apart from such "presuppositions" one could not make sense of any human experience.[3] In other words, presuppositionalists say that a Christian cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions (presumably those of the non-Christian) in which God may or may not exist and which leave human experience unintelligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposi ... pologetics


I also consider Evidentialist apologetics to have value.


You wrote:

Re: "human logic".

Maybe human wisdom or knowledge would have been the better term(s).

and

The perfect God could not be illogical, so if it could be conclusively shown that the trinity doctrine is illogical, it would be false. Of course, I don't think that this has been accomplished, nor do I think that it can be!

No arguements from me on this.

In Christ,

Haas

[Guest]

Derek, I still maintain that "The Word was with God, and the word was God" is contradictory, unless you recognize "God" as being used in a different sense in the second occurence of the word.

It is here that your space and time analogies appear to break down.

You say that "height", "length", and "width" are each " space", but are yet three different entities. You say that "past", "present", and "future" are each "time", but yet are three different entities. So you affirm that "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" are each God, but yet are three different "persons".

However, "... the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John 1:1

Let's try that with "time" and "space".

The "present" is "time". Okay. Yeh, I guess so... at least it is a part of "time" or a parameter of "time".

The "present" is with "time". Hmmmm.... what could that mean?

"Height" is "space". Well, again ---- a part of "space" or a parameter of "space".

"Height" is with "space". Hmmmmm... doesn't seem to make any sense.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Since it appears that you are arguing against the logic of a triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). What is your "logical" description of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

In Christ,

Haas

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

As far as I know, I'm not a classical trinitarian,

Noted.

I realize that it may appear that I’m holding you responsible for every nuance of this doctrine. This is doubly problematic given my own admittedly imperfect understanding of exactly what it teaches. One of the reasons I keep inserting caveats such as “as I understand it” is to keep this clear. My goal in exploring the topic isn’t to prove either of us wrong or right, but, rather to deepen my own understanding. (A bit self-serving perhaps).

Put another way, if my opinion on the trinity doctrine were set in stone, I wouldn’t be nearly so interested in the discussion.

To be honest, I am really not all that interested in being "orthodox" or "classical" or any such thing. I believe in the trinity doctrine, (or at least some form of it), because it makes the most sense of scripture. If you can show otherwise from scripture, I'll gladly change my opinion. It's not like I adhere to some "statement of faith" that I need to line up with!

If I thought it were otherwise, I would look for someone else to talk to… not because I hope to change your opinion, but, rather, I think this is the only intellectually honest way to be, and I’m not interested in conversations with the dishonest.

I think I did more than "suggest" it. I gave examples from the Bible

I’m just trying to be careful when I reinterpret your words.

What exactly do you mean by "logically equivalent"?

I mean that my understanding of trinitarianism is that it asserts that Jesus is exactly God, or Jesus = God. One characteristic of such an equivalency is that it is reflexive.

3 + 2 = 5
5 = 3 + 2

Jesus is God
God is Jesus
Jesus = God
God = Jesus

If by "fully God" one means that all of the totality of God is in Jesus, and no where else, then I am not sure how that could be possible, given trinitariansim.

Okay, I think were getting somewhere.

My understanding of Trinitarian teaching is exactly that... “that all of the totality of God is in Jesus”. This is the “God is one” part of the doctrine. I think this is part of the “mutually indwelling” teaching that asserts that Jesus is inside God and God is inside Jesus simultaneously. The trinity doctrine teaches that this is quite literelly a mutual and simultaneous subsuming, and not just figurative.

If you agree that there is some aspect of God that exists apart from Jesus, or as, you say, “[you’re] not sure how [it] could be possible [that] all of the totality of God is in Jesus, and no where else” then (again as I understand things) you’ve just left the realm of trinitarianism. Trinitarinism teaches exactly that “all of the totality of God exists in Jesus and nowhere else.” At the same time it teaches, “all of the totality if God is in the Holy Spirit and nowhere else” as well as “all of the totality of God is in the Father and nowhere else”.

It would create problems when trying to understand passages where Jesus prayed to the Father, or where the Father speaks to others regarding the Son.

Of course it would! That’s my point.

I wouldn't say that the totality of the trinity is in any one person within it. That would be completely non-sensical.

One might even say, “Illogical”.

Die hard trinitarins would eschew the kind of language you’re employing here. They would say, “You can’t say things like ‘within it’ that implies a division that does not exist! Hear O Israel GOD IS ONE! You can’t go cutting up the trinity that way. It’s a tri UNITY man! It’s perichoresis!”

Again, to be clear, I don’t mean to accuse you of saying any of that. No need to defend against something you haven’t done. I’m trying to express trinitarianism as I understand it, something you asked me to do.

I acknowledge that you don’t claim to align yourself with the whole Trinitarian package. As an aside, it’s not the “eternally begotten” aspect that concerns me anyway… at least not for our current purposes. I don't want to misrepresent you, or make of your beliefs a straw man that I can wail on.

Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent trinitarianism. If I've done so in the above, I hope someone will point it out.

Perry