Thanks heaps everyone who has participated in this thread. I think it’s an excellent example of the kind of round-the-table discussions I want to see Christians have, with different angles being expressed in a friendly manner
Thanks Jason in particular for going along with the approach I suggested. I think the baby steps, then me trying to summarise them, then you expanding on the summary points worked really well, as I was actually able to keep up with you (well almost ).
Thanks Robin for commenting, even whilst on holiday!
Thanks Luke for encouraging me to ask Jason.
I don’t think Dad’s analogy is a perfect fit, however, I do think it’s interesting and that there’s some truth to it, after all we are made in God’s image…
Obviously I agree that the logical connections are not at all obvious–otherwise there would have been (and would now be) many more ortho-trin universalists. I’m the first person I have ever heard of who has formulated the argument in detail, although I do know a few universalists who got there by roughly the same route. (They just hadn’t written hundreds and hundreds of pages of analysis before getting there this way. )
While I have argued elsewhere (and will most likely do so below again ) that I wouldn’t be nearly so sure universalism is true if I was a sheer monotheist, I don’t have any problem agreeing that non-universalists can be trinitarian and vice versa (since obviously this happens pretty frequently), and that they can be rational to do so.
I don’t agree that trinitarians can be validly reasonable to be non-universalist (or to be not universalist of this trinitarian sort anyway–there are poor arguments for universalism that anyone can be valid against); but I don’t consider persons to necessarily need validity to be rational act-ers. Rational people can make mistakes, too, without ceasing to be rational people reasoning responsibly and respectably on the topic.
Obviously Robin and I disagree on whether a properly detailed and valid argument from ortho-trin to universalism could only at most suggest universalism. I have no idea why he’s so certain as to emphasize that mere suggestiveness (so to speak); but I can surely agree with a prudent refusal to commit to it being deductively certain before studying it in-depth.
I’m very grateful for him looking it over!–and as noted, I am also curious as to comparisons with EricR’s work.
(I would be curious to see Tom Talbott look over it again, too; he was also lukewarm on it last time we spoke about it, but that’s been several years ago over on Victor’s DangIdea site.)
According to the above, the Father is God always causing himself to exist. IOW, the Father is self-caused and self-existent. But the Son is not self-existent; rather, he’s always been and is always being caused by the Father to exist. And the Holy Spirit is personally distinct from both the Father and the Son, and proceeds from (is being continuously caused/actualized by?) both the Father (who is self-existent/self-caused) and the Son (whose existence depends on the Father’s causing it). But wouldn’t this mean that there are three distinct, personal existences who each possess the attributes of Deity? If not, please explain. And if so, how would this not mean that there are actually three Deities?
It isn’t impersonal, but it isn’t a distinct person compared to the other persons either. It’s a single personally corporate person.
Not that I would complain if it added up to a fourth Person. But that isn’t necessary, and wouldn’t fit the proposed situation anyway.
It can’t be the same loving interchange and fellowship as I expressed unless those distinct persons of the Father and the Son (not modalism) are in their relationship the one single final ground of all reality (not cosmological bi-theism, and not high Arianism, much less neo-Arianism with a merely human Christ).
By definition it must be a different loving interchange and fellowship. Otherwise you’d be at least binitarian.
And the relevant point for purposes of discussing universalism is that in any less of a relationship, God is not intrinsically an active interpersonal relationship, upon the active fulfillment of which not only all morality but all reality (including God’s own reality) continually depends for existence. In any lesser relationship, God can choose to stop acting toward fulfilling fair-togetherness between persons, or even outright act toward fulfilling non-fair-togetherness between persons, without destroying all reality including Himself.
Obviously we disagree about whether early Christians (including early trinitarians) properly sussed out the implications of scriptural testimony and the metaphysical logic. But that doesn’t change the fact that the past-action creation of even a super-angel at the beginning of natural time is absolutely not the same as the ongoing self-generation of ultimate reality in a mutually fulfilling interpersonal relationship (or even as the static existence of such, as trinitarian Christians have often understood it.) Not the same, and not the same benefits to all reality.
Granted, I can see why you’d want to say it was the same loving interchange and fellowship. But anything less, is less.
Only if the Father is also an entity substantially different from that which created him. In which case neither of those persons are in fact the final independent ground of all reality; meaning either atheism is true or we aren’t yet talking about the true God Most High. (Or one of us isn’t anyway. I know I certainly am, including when I’m talking about the Persons of the Son and the Spirit. )
Less, is less. If you really want to affirm that the Son is just as divine as the Father, and if you want to keep the Father at the most fundamental grounding level of all reality, then binitarian theism (at least, if not trinitarian) is the only way to go. Even cosmological dual-theism won’t quite do it, as then there are two ontologically independent entities existing in relation to one another, which has to take place within a common shared system–and that common system will be the real Independent Fact, the real God (if it is actively rational), not either the Father nor the Son.
(I’ll have to pick up on this thread this afternoon, as I have a huge amount of ‘work’ work on my desk today. Good for business; bad for theological discussion. I haven’t checked whether Aaron’s reply brings up the topic of unitarianism supposedly involving the same top-down constant love as trinitarianism, which he attempted in an earlier thread a few months ago, but since I haven’t caught up with that thread I’m hoping he either mentions it here or will add a further comment importing the topic. Thanks in advance Aaron! )
Aaron (who posted while I was working on replying to Paidion),
No, I just hadn’t read down to your reply yet (other than quickly skimming over the thread, so I know you contributed one.) I’ll have to wait to this afternoon. Much looking forward to it though!
Well, in the thread to which I believe you’re referring (Trinitarian Christianity leads to Universalism? (Or not?)), I argued that God’s disposition is to love (i.e., will the best interests of) every person that he has chosen, or will choose, to create. And this disposition, I believe, is simply an expression of his unchanging and self-existent rational nature. Because I believe reason leads us to conclude that happiness is intrinsically (rather than instrumentally) valuable, God’s rationality inclines him to promote the best interests of all finite persons to the fullest extent possible. So it is because of God’s perfectly rational nature that he has an unchanging disposition to love. And because God cannot be tempted to do that which is contrary to what his rational nature leads him to do (unlike us, who are frequently “lured and enticed” by our own desires to do that which is contrary to our moral nature - James 1:13-14), he never ceases to love those whom he wills into existence.
“I’m positing that there has never been a time when every human being was not certain to be brought into existence. For God (who knows the end from the beginning), there was never a time when we might or might not have existed. We have always been certain to exist, and, as such, God has always loved us. We were loved by God just as much before we were born as after. Yes, the coming into being of actualities makes a “difference” to God. But the difference was not a change in God’s love for us, only the expression of his love. God’s love for us has always been an “active disposition.” God didn’t begin to love us after we were brought into existence, and he didn’t love us more after our existence was actualized than he did before. He was simply able to manifest to us the love he’s always had for us. I believe his love for us was just as perfect and unchanging before our existence was actualized as it was after.”
Aaron, I agree with you on this. I also think there has never been a time when we might or might not have existed (in God’s view).
God is light and therefore has properties of light (or rather, light has properties of God!). The speed of light is the constant and time is relative to it. To a being of light, there is no “time”, except as is perceived by outside observers (contingent created beings). So God always “knew” (knows) the existence of those created apart from their existence being actualized in relative (to God) time.
I think I’ve got a bit of brain dribbling out my ear now…
I have a proclivity or leaning towards the idea of pre-existence, but for myself my consideration from what is now a (self-coined) “Attributarian” belief, I find that I cannot deny the full deity of Christ by any measure, and to do so for me would be to slaughter my Christian faith at its root and fling it into the dung hill.
I’d have to become a Theist of a different sort.
That being said, I find that the easiest way for me to explain how the Trinity = Universalism would be to say;
“God is not a hypocrite, and God is not torn between two options. God the Father, and God the Son agree with each other perfectly, and from the beginning of beginnings they decided to fulfill the will of God; to save all mankind by bringing Mankind into God, in the same way that they; God the Son and God the Father, are God. To make all of creation one with God, in the same way they are one with each other. They agree on this, and will do it, because they are God, and God gets his way.”
I can only be self-aware if I possess an internal mirror. I know I exist when I can see myself in my own mind. Take this away and I lose consciousness. Being both a sinner and a little creature, my internal mirror is flawed. My self-image is very incomplete and changes with the weather.
God’s internal mirror is perfect. A reflection that is perfect in every way is identical to the the object. Christ is God’s self-image. Though the Son is the image (and therefore less than the object), he is nonetheless equal to the Father in every way.
When I look into my internal mirror, Something about myself leaves me, reflects and returns to me. Because I am small and imperfect, that Something is less than everything I am, and so my self-consciousness is partial and fleeting. When God gazes into his own internal mirror, Something leaves God, reflects and returns. Because God’s self-consciousness is absolute, the Something that leaves God is everything God is. It is identical to God in every way.
So we have the Father (the source of Light), the Son (the Image) and the Spirit (the Light that flashes back and forth between the Father and the Son.) All three are identical in every way, but even so, the Father is greater.
When people speak of the “full deity of Christ” I can’t help but hear them saying that Christ is an entity/being who possesses all of the divine attributes and distinctions that are necessary to being categorized and identified as “God.” But if this is the case, then it seems to me that they would have to believe that Christ alone is God if they affirm the existence of only one Deity. Also, if one affirms the full deity of Christ then I’m not sure how one can logically affirm his full humanity. The attributes that make a being fully human and the attributes that make a being fully God seem to be mutually exclusive.
I’m not sure how the above makes UR a more likely outcome than would be the case if God were unipersonal. God could be comprised of an infinite number of persons and UR still wouldn’t be more likely than if a unipersonal God had the desire, power and wisdom to save all mankind. I could simply modify what is said above as follows:
“God is not a hypocrite, and God is not torn between two options. God, the Father, from the beginning of beginnings decided to save all mankind by bringing mankind into himself and becoming “all in all” through the redemptive work of his Son Jesus Christ, whom God raised from the dead and to whom God gave all authority in heaven and on earth. God will thus make all of creation one with himself, in the same way that he and Jesus are one with each other. God will do it, because God gets his way.”
I’ll simply say that if Jesus is not existentially, and essentially, or ontologically God; the faith (Christianity) is not worth keeping, in my opinion.
At best, Jesus would be a finite creature entitled a bestowed title of deity. In which case, God shared his glory with a mere mortal, a “not-God” individual.
I’d have to abandon the Christian faith entirely. I refuse to keep any faith where I have to believe less than my current position, or lower the bar for any reason.
I am perfectly content to believe that God is omnipotent and infinite enough to express his existential being; a hyper-attribute of who he is; in a human form. Especially given that I am a Panentheist, I see not a single issue in Jesus being fully divine, and fully human; the human expression of the eternal Son.
Given the infinite omnipotence of God, I find the Unitarian position to be quite illogical, and limiting.
As for my statement regarding UR and Trinitarianism, it was my answer to the original topic; not an answer to your beliefs.
He is less than the Father because he is the Father’s self-image. He is equal to the Father because he is the perfect image.
Some things can be paradoxical, but true. A circle has one central point, but if the circle is infinite, every point inside that circle is equally the center.
Do you find it equally disagreeable that God would give all authority in heaven and on earth to a being who is said to be a “man,” or make a being who is said to be a “man” “Lord of all?”
I do believe that Christ - who is 100% human - glorifies God/reflects God’s glory more than any other “not-God” being (and can thus be said to be, in one sense, God’s “glory”), and has been given more glory than any other “not-God” being, but I’m not sure where we’re told in Scripture that God has “shared his glory with a mere mortal.” But perhaps there are some verses I’ve overlooked which teach this.
I think it’s pretty reasonable to believe that a not-God being can be described as being the “glory of God” if this not-God being glorifies God in a unique and superior way that no other not-God being does. This doesn’t mean the not-God being has come to possess the full and inherent glory of God so that he/she is in every way equal to God, but it does make the being unique among all other not-God beings (kind of like how Jesus is said to have been anointed “beyond his companions”).
In John 17:2 Jesus says (speaking of his disciples), “The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one…” If Jesus has from all eternity possessed the fullness of God’s glory, why would it need to be given to Jesus by God? And wouldn’t this verse mean that the disciples received God’s glory as well?
If the doctrine of the Trinity is neither logical nor revealed in Scripture, then a rejection of it is hardly an example of believing “less,” or of “lowering the bar!”
I believe God has expressed himself in what he has created as well (think of how an artist expresses himself in his artwork). Human beings are called the image of God, after all, and since Jesus is the perfect human he is the perfect image-bearer. He expresses and reveals God in a way that no other finite being does. He is truly God’s masterpiece. But I’m not sure what God’s omnipotence has to do with Jesus being fully human and fully God. I don’t think God’s omnipotence enables him to create a fully human/fully God being for the same reason that I don’t think his omnipotence enables him to create a square triangle, or a being that is both fully human and fully dog.
Do you think God can create a being that is both fully human and fully dog?
Yeah, I realize that; I was simply commenting on what you said because I thought a discussion like this would be relevant to the topic of this thread. Hope that’s cool. If not, then maybe we can start another thread if you’re interested!
I agree that Jesus is the “perfect image of the Father.” As far as I know, every Biblical Unitarian believes this. But again, if Jesus is in some sense less than the Father, I’m not sure how one could assert that he is also equal to the Father “in every way.”
As far as “infinite circles” go, this sounds like an impossible shape that could not possibly exist. I can’t conceive of a circle that has no center or radius. Why not call this shape an infinite square or triangle as well?
I see no reason to believe Christ isn’t God given that he is equal to God. A mortal, a finite man, a creature, cannot be equal to God in any stretch of the word.
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
(Colossians 2:9)
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
(1 Timothy 3:16)
And in the Latin Vulgate;
He was manifested in the flesh
Manifestatum est in carne
That is to say; He [God] was manifest incarnate (in carne). Effectively, Jesus is God incarnate.
A sample of why I see no reason to believe Jesus is anything less than God incarnate.
I see no reason to believe that lesser view, in comparison to the higher idea.
Jesus, a special creature vs. Jesus God incarnate
I’ll take the latter, if I have to accept the former; it is lowering the bar. I refuse it.
Not in the context of Godhood, worship, and etc; and the glory that implies.
I don’t have to be a “Trinitarian” to believe that Jesus is God; see my Attributarian thread.
A rejection of Jesus as God, is lowering the bar. Biblical or not.
It would seem to me, that you don’t understand just how infinite God is in being able to express his being in the form of a man, as well as maintaining his infinite numinousity.
God isn’t limited to being homogenous.
I don’t think Jesus was “created”, I believe he is The Eternal Son. I think this question you’ve asked is irrelevant (in a nice way).
It is alright, I’ll consider another thread. But I don’t think it will be fruitful any more than the Soulsleep thread was, in perfect honesty.
I was using the word “perfect” in a similar sense as it is often used in Scripture (e.g., Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Jn. 17:23; Heb 10:14; James 1:4). And by “image” I meant the divine image or likeness in which man was said to be created by God, and by which he represents God (Gen 1:26-27; James 3:9). So for a man (a being created in God’s image and likeness) to be a “perfect image of the Father” in the sense of which I’m speaking is for him to be perfectly fulfilling the divine purpose for which he was created by God, and reflecting God’s image to the fullest extent possible. And with the sole exception of Christ, I do not believe there is a human being alive who is reflecting God’s image to the full extent that he was created to reflect God’s image. But I believe Christ is doing this, and can thus rightfully be referred to as the “perfect image of the Father.”
I think we’re defining “circle” differently. My understanding is that a “circle” is a curved geometric shape, and that the radius of a circle is any line segment from its center to its perimeter, and is half its diameter. But infinity is without limits or boundaries. It has no “perimeter” and no “diameter.” To me, speaking of a circle that lacks a perimeter or a diameter is like speaking of a triangle without angles. It’s simply an impossible shape. But again, perhaps we’re simply defining this word in two different ways.
The Incarnation is a separate issue. I’m arguing that God, being self-conscious, must therefore exists as three identical persons, identical in nature, but different in relation.
I confess I project what I find within myself. I’m the only self-conscious thing I have any first-hand knowledge of. I find, on introspection, that am the Observer, I am the Object being observed, and I am the Observation itself. When I talk to myself, or contemplate myself, or love myself, it is truly my self relating to my self, but I am One, not Two. It’s so weird almost no one notices unless something goes wildly wrong, as in multiple personality disorders. Anyway, I have no trouble believing the Father is the Object, the origin of God’s light. The Son is the Observer, understanding and reflecting the light. The Spirit is the light itself. I’m not saying I understand this stuff, but I don’t understand quantum superposition either.
A circle is the set of points equidistant from a single point. If this is true at distance n, it is also true at distance n+1. Therefore it is true for all distances. But as the radius approaches infinity, all finite distances relative to the radius approach zero, and so any arbitrary area within the circle effectively becomes the center.
Funny things happen with infinities. For example, the number line in densely packed with rational numbers. Between any two points, you’ll find and infinite number of rational numbers. Surely there’s no room for more! Then along comes some Greek who proves there exist an infinite number of irrational numbers between any two rational points! Gasp. So I’m not at all surprised that God’s nature is paradoxical and perplexing.
).
)
I like the way this thread went 
I fill like I’m NOT smarter than a Fifth grader 
I’m the only self-conscious thing I have any first-hand knowledge of. I find, on introspection, that am the Observer, I am the Object being observed, and I am the Observation itself. When I talk to myself, or contemplate myself, or love myself, it is truly my self relating to my self, but I am One, not Two. It’s so weird almost no one notices unless something goes wildly wrong, as in multiple personality disorders. Anyway, I have no trouble believing the Father is the Object, the origin of God’s light. The Son is the Observer, understanding and reflecting the light. The Spirit is the light itself. I’m not saying I understand this stuff, but I don’t understand quantum superposition either.