Trinity.

[TheEditor]

Yeah, that was basically my point. It isn't analagous. This to me is the real problem. If by "God" we were referring to "Divine", then it would be no issue. I find it interesting in my debates with trinitarians years ago when I was Arian in my belief, that they would insist that "divinity" was not an acceptable word; it needed to be "God". And yet, even in this forum we read these words used interchangeably by trinitarians.

I am wondering who is really confused about the doctrine? Trinitarians, or non-trinitarians? If "God" is only describing "nature", then I think most non-trinitarians would agree with trinitarians. The problem, to my mind, is that there is this vague, back-and-forth conflating on the part of trinitarians between "nature" and "person".

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

The problem, to my mind, is that there is this vague, back-and-forth conflating on the part of trinitarians between "nature" and "person".

Correct. And also a similar conflating among four references to "God". They sometimes use it to mean the Father alone, and other times to mean "The Trinity", and another to mean "Jesus" , or still another to mean "The Holy Spirit".

And then they use God in one other mysterious way. They say, for example, "Jesus is God but God is not Jesus," which seems to mean that there's more to God than Jesus alone. So in this statement, they seem to be using "God" in the second instance to mean "The Trinity". But clearly they are not using "God" in the first instance to mean "The Trinity", for they don't claim that Jesus is the Trinity. So how ARE they using it in the first instance? Do they mean that Jesus is part of God? Or do they mean that He is "God stuff", id est "the essence of God"? If the latter, then I agree. It's the same way the word is used in John 1:1 when it is written that the Logos "was God".

By the way, you can tell whether a person understands John 1:1 by the way they read it. If they read, "and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God", they seem to be identifying the Word with God, that is, as the same Person. But if they read it, "and the Word was with God and the Word was GOD", then they understand it as saying that the Word was divine, or God-stuff in essence.

[darinhouston]

By the way, you can tell whether a person understands John 1:1 by the way they read it. If they read, "and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God", they seem to be identifying the Word with God, that is, as the same Person. But if they read it, "and the Word was with God and the Word was GOD", then they understand it as saying that the Word was divine, or God-stuff in essence.

I like that.

[darinhouston]

Has anyone here explored the doctrine of Divine Simplicity?

[Homer]

Has anyone here explored the doctrine of Divine Simplicity?

Read about it, but it is not well regarded by such as John S. Feinberg, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga.

[Paidion]

Never heard of it. Just what IS "doctrine of Divine Simplicity"?

[darinhouston]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

A sentence from the article:

The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the "attributes" of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being...

So God is just a bundle of attributes. That sounds impersonal to me.

[Homer]

And you see how that works: God is love and love is God.

[TheEditor]

It would seem to negate all passages in which God calls people to reason, repent, etc. Almost like a more positive version of the Christadelphian view of Satan, as a non-personal sin-nature.

Regards, Brenden.