[underlining mine]
Since the set of points outside an infinite circle is the empty set, you might as well say, “Every point is equally the center.”
The word “inside” is redundant.
I’d never noticed that before, but of course you’re right. No points exist outside an infinite circle. So which is longer? The radius of an infinite circle or the side of an infinite square?
I well remember my incomprehension when first informed that some infinities are infinitely bigger than others…
Before I continue I think I should distinguish between (at least) three related topics.
1.) Is orthodox trinitarian theism true compared to any other metaphysic (theology or philosophy)? And/or is ortho-trin what is being testified to by scriptural witness (particularly and/or overall when the scriptures are systematically tallied up)?
This is not something I was bothering to argue, partly because this wasn’t what I was asked, and partly because even the metaphysical side of the question would take me 600+ pages to give a decent answer to. But mostly because I was replying to trinitarians whom, I suppose, already accept ortho-trin to be true and so who don’t have to be convinced of it. (Though they might have to be convinced of various technical details regarding it as a coherent set of theological doctrines.)
2.) Does ortho-trin lead to universalism and, if so, certainly or only suggestively so (and if only suggestively how suggestively)?
This is the question I was asked by Alex and (by proxy) Luke. This topic could be discussed con or pro by anyone whether or not they agreed ortho-trin is true: theoretically a unitarian (for example–whether Christian or Muslim for example!) could agree that God’s persistent action to save all sinners from sin follows logically as a consequence of ortho-trin, while still believing ortho-trin per se to be false.
Related to (2) as a subsidary issue is:
3.) Does ortho-trin have special connections to universalism that other metaphysical doctrine sets (such as unitarian or modalist Christianity in varieties thereof) do not have?
Although I wasn’t asked this question by Alex and (by proxy) Luke, I did bring up the topic several times in the process of discussing (2). This comparison, however, is still not the same thing as topic (1).
I mention this to caution that the topical focus of the thread is constantly veering off in the direction of (1) instead of primarily (2) and secondarily (3). As much as I love debating whether ortho-trin is true or not (whether exegetical testimony or metaphysics or both), this thread is really supposed to be an in-house discussion among trinitarians on the topic of universalism’s relationship to orthodox trinitarian theism.
On the other hand, it’s also true that topic (2) (and consequently (3)) cannot be discussed by anyone, trinitarian or otherwise, without getting a handle on, and an understanding of, ortho-trin (and to some degree its variations) as a doctrinal set. This is still not quite the same thing as topic (1), but obviously any attempt to do so (even by trinitarians) will tend to lean in that direction.
So I’m not putting my administrational… administerial… … alchemical… my foot down 
on the topical spread that has developed (and/or recommending other admins and mods in the thread do the same), but I am asking thread participants to please keep in mind what the focus of the thread is supposed to be, and try to keep aimed back in that direction even when drifting into (1).
This, by the way, in case anyone was wondering, is why I skipped over Paidion’s remarks about the subordination of the Son to the Father (including in GosJohn testimony)–though also because I had a lot of ‘work’ work developing at the office yesterday and needed to concentrate on that for the rest of the day (after which I was pretty wiped out. 
) That was purely topic (1); and, unlike his opening question to me which was also purely topic (1) he didn’t ask a question of me there (which I answered as shortly as possible in order to get back to the main topic).
Also, for what it’s worth, I’ve addressed his observations and arguments along that line already in multiple threads, to the effect that the authoritative and hierarchical subordination of the Son is no more a problem for ortho-trin than distinction of the Persons: the 2nd Person would certainly not be lying to call the 1st Person “the One True God”, and this in combination with the 2nd Person’s typical submittal to the 1st even in the single substantial ontological reality of the Deity (which by the way !!I discussed a lot in my main posts to Alex and Luke!!) means it would also be entirely proper, if strange to our ears, for the 2nd Person to call the 1st Person “My God”.
Obviously that situation can fit other theologies, too (though not every other theology–not modalism for example). I’m not disputing that. But since it is abundantly clear that Paidion for whatever reason either doesn’t remember or doesn’t care to remember what I have repeatedly said before along that line, so as to bring up the topic again in context of my replies already so that we can have an actual discussion on that topic, I saw (and still see) no particular reason to diverge from the topical focus of this thread to reply yet again on that sub-topic.
Although, being quite the baroque operator, I think I just did so again… But my point is that that kind of discussion is rather off-target for the topic of this thread anyway.
Consequently: there has been a large amount of discussion since I had to get busy elsewhere yesterday, but even though I want to address it all, I’m going to try to stay focused on topics (2) and (3). On the other hand, I do realize that understanding ortho-trin is important for discussing topics (2) and (3), so I intend to select some digressions into (1) where I think I can point the discussion back into (2) and (3). (Thus why I answered most of what I did answer from Paidion’s comment. 
And also thus why I went into some detail about what I have already answered in other threads in regard to the submittal of the Son personally and in utter loyalty to the Father earlier in this comment: because I thought of how that relates to my argument to fellow trinitarians in regard to establishing universalism as a corollary to ortho-trin!)
Quickly passing by: while I realize the kind of illustration attempted by AllenS is popular (and has some far more sophisticated exponents, too, such as Dorothy Sayers in The Mind of the Maker), it’s only barely analogous to trinitarian theism.
The point of contact is the issue of self-relation, and maybe also the concept that without distinction from an other there can be no personal ‘I’. But (in the popular form reported by Allen) there is no distinction from an other in the self-relation–as others noted afterward, there is no distinction of persons in the illustration.
The illustration, consequently, is technically that of modalism, not of trinitarianism.
(Sayers avoided this by expanding the popular illustration to fit an analogy of one person writing a play, one person performing the play, and one person watching and appreciating the play. I’m not real happy about that either, but it does at least get a distinction of persons into the account. My main disagreement with her attempt there is that, despite the actions involved, it still involves merely static self-existence; although an Eastern Orthodox theologian who denies the filioque might be quite happy with it. Ironically enough, considering that Sayers was a Roman Catholic proponent of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son together.)
The concept of needing a distinction from an other in order to properly exist as a self-conscious person, is something I do think has some serious relevance to ortho-trin (including in comparison with other theistic options in various ways); but I can’t offhand think of a way this has a direct bearing on the question of universalism (especially via ortho-trin, or not). So I won’t be following out that conceptual discussion here. (I spend some time on it in SttH, although I don’t recall which chapter offhand. I’m sure it’s somewhere in Section Three.)
There is no such thing as an individual person. Persons always and only exist in relation to other persons. The phrase “I exist” is meaningless. It must be “We exist”. How do I know this? At the most basic level, I ask myself, “Self, do you exist?” And my self replies, “I believe I do. And thank you for asking.”
This is nothing new. “And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.””
The inner listener to whom I speak isn’t a mode, but a person. I don’t speak to modes, and modes don’t speak to me.
I’ve published two novels. The worlds and the characters I created exist in my mind, and in the minds of the readers. A whole universe popped into being somewhere, somehow, in the mystic space between me and myself. This creation was an act of consciousness, and therefore involved both me and myself in dialogue. Whenever I asked myself, “Hmmm. What happens now?”, to whom was I speaking?
I wrote a spoof chapter to amuse some friends. In it, I entered the world I had created and introduced myself to the two main characters. They had difficulty believing that I was indeed their creator, that author of all they surveyed, that “in me they live and move and have their being”, that “before a word is on their lips, I know it”, and that “all their days are written in my book”.
As you’ve no doubt experienced yourself, characters miraculously take on a life of their own, which I found quite spooky. Were their lives absolutely determined by me, or did some of my freedom begin to rub off on them? And I become emotionally entangled with them, which is absurd, but very intense and very real. I also created characters who were doomed to destruction, which is an unsettling thought for a Universalist…
Hi Jason,
Since I think it would be more appropriate to continue the discussion about whether or not Jesus is God on a thread besides this one, should I just post any further responses that deal most directly with this subject on the already-existing thread “Is Jesus God or What”(Is Jesus God or What?)? Or should I just create a new thread?
Interesting stuff, Allan; thanks for trying to help me to better understand this. So is an infinite circle a closed plane curve, or no?
In my current class with Edinburgh’s Larry Hurtado he is brilliantly defending the dominant view, and today is the final day given to posing our questions on his case. I personally find his sparring partner, James D. G. Dunn, better captures my sense of the N.T. in his book, “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence.” I’m wondering if Aaron and others of you are familiar with his approach, which I perceive as a middle ground which challenges both Unitarianism and many conceptions of Trinitarian ontology. He sees Jesus reverenced as a unique ‘divine’ agent of God’s presence and reality, but “God” (the Father, YHWH) as the only Source who alone will ultimately be “all in everyone,” as even our Lord Jesus will be subjected to the one Paul calls “the GOD of our Lord.”
I’m interested in hearing more about that too, Bob. I sort of feel in limbo here, because I am neither a trinitarian or a unitarian.
I’m probably currently a “binitarian”, or something else in between, perhaps more along the lines of what Dunn is aiming at. 
That does sound interesting. I’m somewhat familiar with Dunn’s work on the “New Perspective on Paul,” but that’s about it. I’ll have to check out the book.
Hi Lefein,
I decided to go ahead and respond to your last post on another thread that I felt was more appropriate given the direction in which our discussion has gone!
I’ve no idea. 
As the circle gets ever larger, the curve gets ever straighter. The curve of an infinitely large circle is in fact a straight line. Can a plane be enclosed by a straight line?
The thing is, if I cannot understand something as simple as an infinitely large circle, I have no hope in hell (or in heaven) of understanding an infinite person/s. “God dwells in unapproachable Light.”
I think the idea of an infinite sphere with a positional point is more than understandable. If one is willing to forgo the necessity of being “difficult” in technicality for the sake of actually understanding the point being made.
I’d illustrate the idea in this sort of fashion;
Give attention to a hypothetical, infinite sized realm of pure white light, or a canvas of white, or an infinite empty white room.
Now, within this room; is a seamless white dot, which is the same exact colour and essence and substance as the rest of the infinite white room around it.
Point to the dot.
The reason I asked is because in my Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th edition) a circle is defined as “a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve.” So according to this definition at least, if what you refer to as an “infinite circle” is not a closed plane curve, then it’s an infinite something but it’s not in fact a real “circle.” If the definition provided in this modern collegiate dictionary is correct, then to say you have no idea whether or not an “infinite circle” is a closed plane curve is really to say you have no idea whether it is really a genuine circle. And while this may seem somewhat nitpicky, I think it makes an important point that is very relevant to theological discussions like this: we must be careful to define our terms and be as consistent and precise as we can, and not slip into sloppy and evasive language in which terms are misused and equivocated.
What’s interesting is that in the verse you quote above from 1 Tim 6:16, “God” refers to one Person, not a multi-personal being. He is even distinguished from “Christ Jesus” (see vv. 13-15). 
Why should God be limited to one “person”?
He’s God.
Its quite a bit like limiting Music to one dull, perpetual, singular pitch of note.
If God is Light, reality shows quite plainly that light is not existentially monochromatic.
[edited for clarity]
How many persons do you think God has revealed himself to be?
Do you think God is literally “light?” Jesus called his disciples “the light of the world.” Are they all multipersonal beings as well?
As many as he is, or so pleases to be. I’m not God’s auditor, he reveals himself however he wants; as whatever he wants, or whoever he wants.
From burning bush, to pillar of cloud, to Son of Man Himself.
If he is, or not, does not negate the fact that the illustration is comparable. Light is not monochromatic, neither is God.
Yes. His disciples are The Church, One Body; with Peter, John, Paul, Matthew, Luke…Origen, Gregory, George MacDonald…Lefein…etc.
As for Lefein, I am certain he is multi-personal. I am all at once Lefein, Matthew (my real name), and quite a few characters in various worlds I’ve created with the words of my mouth and the pen in my hand.
And if the one God has been pleased to reveal himself as only one Person (the Father - 1 Cor 8:6), would you be okay with that? Or would you complain against God that he is too “limited” for your preference?
But why do you think light’s not being monochromatic has anything at all to do with how many persons God is? Do you think John was trying to illustrate how God is multi-personal when he declared “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all?” If so, how do you know this? In addition to not being monochromatic, light also exhibits properties of both waves and particles. Do you think this means God exhibits properties of both waves and particles as well? Light in a vacuum also has a measurable speed (exactly 299,792,458 m/s). Does this mean God has a measurable speed at which he travels, or that God has to travel at all?
Jesus was clearly addressing individuals when he said “You are the light of the world,” not one Being. He didn’t mean, “You are all multi-personal beings”; that’s absurd. Peter, James and John are not multi-personal beings. Jesus also said to his disciples, “I am the light of the world.” Is Jesus a multi-personal being? I really think your “light” illustration is a bit strained.
(the following was added to your post after I completed my response)
Ok, this is getting kind of bizarre. To be a “person” is to possess, at minimum, a first person perspective. This would, I believe, include self-awareness, intelligence and will - or at least an inherent capacity for this. Are you honestly saying you are a multi-personal being because you have more than one name and have thought up imaginary versions of yourself (not that there’s anything wrong with that!)?
I’d find him exceedingly boring. and quite unimaginative for a god if he did. But, given that I’ve considered the lilies of the field - I am quite convinced he hasn’t been so very boring about himself as that.
Ad absurdum arguments don’t negate the fact that God isn’t monochromatic.
Hardly constrained at all. The only constraint in the whole matter of light is the constraints you are pressing on it in an effort to devalue the the point I made that Light is by nature, not monochromatic, and therefore God, who is comparable (and compared in the Bible) to Light, is by nature also not monochromatic.
In short, you’re constraining the Bible’s light illustration, by your own self, in what I feel is an attempt to devoid the basic point I was making. An effective argument, but one I find just a little bit absurd; and one that does not effectively convince me in the least.
The truth is exceedingly simple. Creation is not monochromatic…Light is not monochromatic…God is not monochromatic.
As far as I’m concerned, all of the above may as well be true. But you missed my point.
Hi Lefein,
Because I’m really trying not to hijack this thread with a discussion that isn’t directly relevant to the OP, I’ve created a new thread to continue our discussion: Is God More Than One Person?. Hope that’s cool.