The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Even if you disagree, this is THE case for Unitarianism

Studies Articles
#21

Thank you, sir, that was, as always, a well-written essay. :smiley: You do have a gift for focusing, amassing evidence, and presenting an argument - a gift I have fervently wanted and not (yet!) attained.

I have a few quick thoughts.
First, the scriptures are not shy about using anthropomorphisms, as you know. In a sense - and I’m just thinking out loud here - the Incarnation was an anthropomorphism, no?
Second, I don’t really understand the word ‘hypostases’, and it seems to be a term that is undefinable, unless the word ‘person’ is used as part of the definition. But if the concept ‘person’ is anthropomorphic, doesn’t the definition fail?
Third, the Son is certainly aware of the Father as being a different - what, if not Person? One does not pray to oneself, one does not mediate between oneself and man, but between God (the Father, right? It must be the Father alone, or the mediation sounds rather silly) and man.

Well, there are many unanswerable questions; the main question here is whether something that is a Mystery, and undefinable, and not able to be comprehended, can or should be normative for Christian belief. On the other hand, the NT is crystal clear about the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and I hold to that clarity. I don’t know what else to do, frankly.

I believe that Channing was expressing his opposition to what, at his time, was current thinking. When I find some time I will try to find current (at his time) explanation of the Trinity.

Thanks again.

#22

Dave, I recently wrote two articles on the meaning of divine person (with you in mind). You may find the second in particular of interest: Father, Son, Spirit as Divine Selves. Enjoy … or at least I hope you don’t disenjoy. :slight_smile:

#23

Thanks once again! Enjoyed that link, I did.

This, though:
“It means only that three divine Selfs exist in, and possess, the indivisible Godhead, without either separation or confusion. Such doctrine is not self-contradictory, for it does not, as is objected, declare three persons to be one person, or three beings to be one being.”

What then DOES it mean, if not those things? Three Selfs, not ‘confused’ (as in mixed together, overlapping, I take it) and not ‘separate’.

These 3 talk to one another, celebrate one another etc - but they are not separate. ?

“The divine persons, rather, perfectly co-exist in each other by virtue of their equal possession of the one divine nature. This is the doctrine of coinherence. Hence the term “person” may be considered as functionally equivalent to “subject,” “self,” or even “ego” but without any suggestion of separation” We may not be able to explain how there can be three selves where there are not three independent beings; but why do we think that we may impose our experience of finite human personality upon the infinite and transcendent Creator? “Apart from supernatural revelation,” Hall rightly states, “the possibilities of divine personality lie beyond our capacity to determine” (IV:193). Measuring and defining divine personality by what we observe in the created realm must be judged misguided and unsound, if not silly. “Because we never find more than one real self in one human being, it does not follow that only one self can exist in the one divine Being” (IV:166-167)."

About 5 non-sequiturs in a row, there. I leave the proof to the student. :smiley:

I don’t think that understanding this is a matter of intelligence, or, of course, I would have gotten it immediately. :laughing:
I just don’t think there is any ‘there’ there. I’m standing on scripture on this, not philosophy, but even philosophically I don’t think that coining a phrase and then saying we cannot understand it but it’s true and actually a requirement for Christian belief, begs the question in a big way.
What is CLEAR in scripture must take priority. IMHO the Trinity as spoken of in your essay is not a clear concept. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are clear, otoh.

#24

Right. Not separate. Given that each divine person equally and fully possesses the divine essence, they cannot be ontologically separate, as angels or beavers are separate from God. And given that God is immaterial, they are not separated by space. So in what sense are they separated? And yet Holy Scripture and the spiritual experience of the Church tells us that the three person are to be distinguished–hence the paradoxical language of the trinitarian doctrine. Heresy is taking one truth and exalting it over other revealed truths, resulting in an unbalanced presentation of divine revelation. The classical doctrine of the Trinity refuses to do this; rather, it asserts the entire counsel of God, holding antithetic truths in tension.

The Church Fathers were keen students of the Bible. I’m confident they knew the Scriptures far better than you and I. Many of them were also well-trained in philosophy. And yet they refused to take the easy route of harmonization. Why? Because the gospel itself was at stake! The anti-Christian philosophers of the early centuries of the first millennium rejected the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as illogical and irrational. Against them the trinitarian Tertullian declared, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”

The very same Church Fathers who canonized the books of the Old and New Testaments were the ones who proclaimed the Nicene doctrine of the Holy Trinity. If you reject the Trinity, you cut the scriptural limb upon which you are standing, Dave.

#25

I feel like this is appropriate at this time?

youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

#26

LOL. All creaturely analogies are inadquate, as the video makes so very clear. :slight_smile:_

#27

Oh come now, the ‘entire counsel of God’ - that’s overreaching a bit, I think, if not pretentious.
As to antithetic - def: diametrically opposed? No wonder it takes a heap of high-falutin’ words to convince anyone of its truth. Now if it was plainly in scripture, it might not take as much work.
I hold, at this time, the ‘classical’ Unitarian doctrine of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I think my classical is as good as your classical. :smiley:

I really don’t want to get involved in an ECF discussion - we’ve had those here and they were generally less than satisfactory. I cannot accept your statement that I’ve cut off the scriptural limb I’m sitting on, Al. I’m as fallible as the next guy, but I’m trying to lean on the trunk and understand the roots more than I am up there with the birds. That’s almost a metaphor!

What if, when Delilah asked Samson where he got his strength, he answered ‘from the Lord’?
I feel much the same way about councils, creeds, catechisms, Institutes. That’s not where our strength comes from. Somewhere along the line I decided to try and see as clearly as I could, and make my choices as best I could - and the belief in the Trinity as ‘classically’ (makes it sound so venerable) defined, as holding diametrically opposed ideas, coming into being a few hundred years after the gospel was preached to the world without the idea of the Trinity being stressed or developed, is not convincing. I see no need for it. I am happy to have God as my Father, Jesus as my elder brother (and as an aside, Lord and king of the world) and the Holy Spirit to make these things real. The ‘classical’ view just confuses me.

#28

BTW, I am certainly not calling the good Father - pretentious or overreaching - it was the claim for the ‘classical’ stance that I was referring to. Akimel has always been fair and kind. :smiley: