Three Gods

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Carey and Audrey Robinson sent some very thoughtful comments on what I
said about the Godhead, but I would like to clearify some of my points.

"love is strong as death, jealousy harsh as the grave"
					Song of Solomon 8:6
			Yeaton Clifton

			yhclifto@vela.acs.oakland.edu

On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Cary & Audrey Robison wrote:

> Yeaton Clifton wrote:
> 
> >You may learn meaning of trinity either from Augustine's treatise on the
> >Trinity...
> 
> Certainly Augustine in _De Trinitate_ explained the Godhead as having
> personal, relational distinctions incompatible with our monarchian view.
> Yet, it's interesting that his analogies explaining the Trinity were drawn
> between the internal nature of God and the multiple internal workings of
> one human person's mind. He was wary of analogies that might suggest the
> idea of three gods (and warned that all analogies were but feeble attempts
> to understand and explain God's nature). 
> 

This comment is suprisingly critical of Augustines insight and his genius
(neither of which I belive are challanged by most oneness or Trinitarian
belivers.)  But, there is a basic reason I cited Augustine.Augustine did
not present his own opinion. While he agreed with the opinion he presented
by him, he was only expounding the views Anathasius who was the victor in
the debate during the Nicene council as to what "Trinitarian" means (the
looser Arias beiieved that the Son was a lesser God than the Father.)
Therefore Augustine's treatise can be considered an authentic text on
original meaning of the term Trinity.  There are new definitions of
Trinity (many of which support outright tritheism and many of which are
modalist monarchy in disguise, but all mearly create greater confusion by
changing the meaning of words.  After these new definions have confused
the readers, the authors of these new inventions demand the reader agree
with what ever monster he has invented because whoever disagrees whith him
is not a "Tritarian" but a "heretict."

	Without regaurd to labels.  A person who disagrees with Augustine
would be wise to admit that we simply do not belive in the Trinity and if
this makes us "heretical," so be it.  Better to burned for heresy on earth
than to be danmed for breaking the law of God written in Acts 2:38. 
 > 

Barring the question of whether God is Trinity, I don't find Augustine's
comments on the Godhead feeble; infact I suggest you read the book over.

> >...or from the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas.  These books
> >describe Jesus and the Holy Ghost as distinct entities from the Father.
> 
> In an exposition of the Latin doctrine of the Trinity, based on Thomas
> Aquinas, _The Catholic Encyclopedia_ says, "The whole perfection of the
> Godhead is contained in the one infinite Divine Essence." Explaining the
> Trinitarian view of the Father and Son, it says they are identical in their
> divine essence, and that God's one substance "is identical not with two
> absolute *entities*, but with each of two relations."
> 
> >The reason I accuse trinitarians of worshiping three Gods is it seems, to
> >me, impossible believe in three distinct beings yet claim they are not
> >seperate gods.
> 
> I certainly agree, belief "in three distinct beings" would be tritheistic.
> These theologians did affirm belief in three personal, relational
> distinctions within the one substance of *one being*. But where do they
> contend for the persons of the Trinity as *three beings*?
I used the term being because it often carries the meaning of reality as
does the greek word hypostisis (this is word translated as person.)  I
realy wanted to avoid philosphical gobledeegook.  

	But since I have been called on words I used let me explain. The
term abosulte enitiy is not in the Bible (hence it is non Biblical) and
has no baring experience.  You may call yourself an absolute but in
reality your being is dependent on relations such as how it eats and how
it breathes.  Therefore your substance is a relational being not an
absolute entity.  The three persons (or three substances or three
hypostysis) are defined by Augustine and Aquinas and Anthasius by how
they relate to each other so they are as much three distinct beings as you
or I (I guess an existenitialist could try to refute this by arguing that
he did not exist himself.)


	The point I am getting to is that the complexity of this doctrine
of the Trinity is so great it is hard to prove that it is or is not
different from a belife in three Gods.  It is built on a belife in God
from Platonic and neoPlatonic theories about the nature of God which are
alien to the view of God revealed in scrtipture.  It requires a great deal
of medieval Greek language (some times referred to as Byzantine Greek.
And through its confusion it often leads people to break the command to
baptized in Jesus Name. 

Scrtiure makes clear statements about who God is:

Jesus Christ is "The might God" and the "Everlasting Father."
"Christ came in the flesh" and you are with Christ if you have "His Spirit
in you."


Are these statements made clearer with Byzantine Greek.  Are they made
more Christian by the use of Greek Philosphy.  Or is there some greater
revalation and newer prophesy greater than the truth known to Peter and
Paul (the claim of progressive revelation has been made to me by a
suprising number of ministers when I asked them to defend there
trinitarian belife.)  


If you would answer yes to both questions you would certainly belive in
the Trinity, but if you answer no you might be inclined to let the Bible
tell you who God is.