I think a unipersonal being is as meaningless as a square circle. A person can only exist in relation to other persons. I am a person only so long as I relate to my own self, and to other selves.
It’s interesting. Jesus prays that we will be one, just as he and the Father are one. We’re told that the Church is the Bride of Christ. Now Christ will not marry a bride of a different species to himself. If Christ, being one with the Father, is divine, the church, being one with Christ, must also be divine.
I think God is content to be himself. If he’s one person (as I think Scripture reveals), I think he’s content to be one person. If God were two or three persons (or more), I think he (they?) would be content to be however many persons they are. You’re talking as if a unipersonal God would be wrong for not revealing himself as more than one person. But I don’t think God wants to be anything other than who and what he is, and if he is unipersonal, who are we to demand that he be something else, or to claim that he is wrong or “limited” because he refuses to be something other than what he is and always has been?
As far as a unipersonal God (i.e., “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”) being “two steps away from being the deity of the Deist,” I’m not sure I understand your point. How many steps away from the deity of the Deist is the deity of the Trinitarian?
I believe the Supreme Being sent a perfectly sinless human being to be the mediator between himself and humanity and reveal himself to us: the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5). Notice that in this verse Paul states that there is “one God” and “one mediator.” Who is this “one God?” Answer: it is evident that Paul understood the “one God” to be the Father (1 Cor 8:6; cf. 1 Tim 1:1-2). So when Paul says that there is “one mediator between God and men,” he is referring to that Being whom Christ identifies as “our heavenly Father” and “my God and your God.” The man, Jesus, is the one mediator between the one God (the Father) and men. The “one God” to whom Paul refers (i.e., the Father) is the same Being to whom he refers at the end of this epistle as “…he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see…” This supports my position even further: the man, Jesus Christ, is the one mediator between the one God because the one God dwells in unapproachable light and cannot be seen. So he (not they) sent a being who can be seen by us (a man) to reveal himself to us. Jesus is thus the “image of the invisible God” - the sinless, human mediator between the invisible God and man. The “invisible God” - our Father in heaven, and Jesus’ God - is the Supreme Being. And I do not believe the one Supreme Being sent the one Supreme Being to be the one mediator between the one Supreme Being and man. The Supreme Being sent a being who is not himself (not-God) to be the mediator between himself and man, and gave him the power and authority to speak and act on his behalf in a way that no other agent has done or will do.
What about the other divine persons to whom you believe Jesus is fully and in every way equal? Are they all “impersonal” since they didn’t directly interact with human beings as Jesus did during his earthly ministry? Do you find the Being to whom Paul refers in 1 Tim 6:16 impersonal? After all, we’re told no one has ever seen the “blessed and only Sovereign,” and that he dwells in “unapproachable light.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “personal only out of purest technicality, and begrudgingly so.” But whatever you mean, I can’t help but think you’re betraying your true feelings concerning the One whom Paul refers to as “the invisible God,” and whom Christ identifies as “our heavenly Father.” If a divine person can only be thought of as “personal” insofar as he walks among men in the flesh, then according to your view the Father is not personal! In fact, it would mean that there is only one “person” in the whole “Godhead” who is actually “personal!”
So for you, a triune God is less boring and less impersonal than a biune God, and a biune God is less boring and less impersonal than a unipersonal God. I can only assume that a four-person God would for you be only less boring and less impersonal than a triune God, and so forth. I suppose he would have to be an infinite number of persons in order for him to not bore you at all, and to be a being that is truly Supreme. A God with any finite number of persons would only be less boring and less impersonal than the God with one less person.
But again, if God is one Person by virtue of his existence and nature (and is perfectly content and happy just as he is), how would he be “limiting himself in his expressions?” It would be like me saying that Lefein is limiting himself by not being someone and something other than he ontologically is.
It seems “he” (they) would have to be an infinite number of persons in order for “him” to be a truly superior Being whom you would not find at least relatively “boring” and “impersonal,” and who would not be “self-limiting.”
So you would consider a 1st century Jew listening to Jesus during his Sermon on the Mount mistaken who viewed the beauty and diversity of creation as manifesting the creative work of one Person and Mind (i.e., the Father in heaven) rather than a multitude of Persons and Minds?
Why do you keep saying “he” if you think God is more than one person? Why don’t you say “they?”
How many persons does God have to be in order for him to not be finite in your opinion? Earlier you said God “might very well have an infinite number of persons,” but it seems to me that, according to your view, having any finite number of persons would necessarily make God “thoroughly finite.”
There’s a good discussion on this verse I had with Michael on another thread (Another question); much of the following is simply copy and pasted from that thread.
I don’t think Jesus was identifying himself as YHWH, the Most High God when he said “I am.” The very same Greek expression (ego eimi) is used in the next chapter by the man Jesus healed of blindness. There, we read that this man kept telling the people, “I am the man” (ego eimi), in response to their questioning him (John 9:9). Although this man’s words could just as legitimately be translated “I am” as Jesus’ words in chapter 8, no one thinks this man was claiming to be YHWH. The Greek phrase translated in John 8:58 as “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he” - Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I” - Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” - John 8:24 and 28.). The expression “ego eimi” was simply a common way of designating oneself; it did not mean one was claiming to be God.
So who was Jesus claiming to be in this verse, if not YHWH, the one God of Israel? Answer: the context must determine what is meant. Jesus was claiming to be the promised Messiah-Savior who was foretold by God even before Abraham existed (Gen 3:15), which would thus make him greater than Abraham (a fact which was inconceivable to the unbelieving Jews, since they did not believe he was who he claimed to be - v. 53).
In order for Jesus to have been identifying himself as YHWH, he would actually have needed to say “I am I AM”, or “I am the I AM.” But he didn’t. He simply said “Before Abraham was, I am.” The expression “I AM” occurring in both Exodus 3:14 and John 8:48 is an error of English translation. The Greek speaking Jews and early Christians used different words in these verses. The Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14 (Lexham LXX Interlinear) reads as follows:
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν,
— said — God to Moses, I am the (One) (who) exists.",
καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ
And (then) he said, "Thus you will say to the sons of Israel,
Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
`The (One) (who) exists has sent me to you.’".
So Greek speakers used ho ōn (ὁ ὤν) for God’s title rather than egō eimi:
And God said to Moses, “I am (ego eimi) THE BEING (ho on).” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘THE BEING (ho on) has sent me to you’” (Ex 3:14, LXX). But in John 8:58 (ESV), Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you: before Abraham was, I am (ego eimi).” There’s a BIG difference between saying egō eimi and egō eimi ho ōn. The Greek expression egō eimi is, by itself, not the divine name of God in Greek (which is egō eimi ho ōn), nor is it the shortened version of the name (which is ho ōn). In the LXX, God never used this expression alone as a means of self-designation. “Ho ōn,” either by itself or immediately following egō eimi, was how God identified himself.
Moreover, we can clearly see that the Jews didn’t consider “I am” to be the divine name of God because they weren’t bothered by Jesus using it earlier in the chapter (John 8:24, 28). It definitely wasn’t a reaction to Jesus saying “ego eimi” or else they would have stoned him at verse 24. It was the fact that, in claiming to be (in some sense) “before Abraham was,” Jesus was affirming his preeminence over Abraham in God’s redemptive plan - i.e., that he is the one about whom the Scriptures had prophesied before Abraham was born. This verse no more teaches that Christ literally pre-existed than v. 26 is teaching that Abraham literally saw the “day” of the Messiah. Abraham saw it in anticipation, by faith. And Jesus existed only in the foreknowledge of God (1Pet 1:20), as the promised Messiah.
The exact meaning of what is being said when someone declares “ego eimi” is not necessarily inherent in the expression, but may need to be supplied by the listener or reader. That is, when someone used the Greek expression “ego eimi,” the listener (or reader) might have to “fill in the blank” to understand the claim that’s being made. This is evident from verses 24-25, where Jesus used the same expression (ego eimi), to which the Jews asked in response, “Who are you?” (and again, notice that they didn’t pick up stones and attempt to kill him in response to what Jesus said!). Yes, Jesus was making a claim concerning his self-identity, but “eigo eimi” did not in itself convey that which the unbeliever Jews should have already known (i.e., that he was the Messiah of which their own Scriptures had long prophesied and borne witness to). So what Jesus meant in v. 58 was, “I am the Messiah about whom the Scriptures prophesied before Abraham came into existence.” Jesus was speaking of himself in the present in reference to something that pertained to him in the past. And while the unbelieving Jews rightfully understood Jesus to be making a Messianic claim (that’s why they sought to kill him at this time, and is also the basis of the charges that would later be brought against him during his trial), they mistook his words to be a claim to be literally older than Abraham (though not a claim to be “timeless,” as is sometimes asserted by Trinitarians). But again, Jesus was no more claiming to be older than Abraham than he was claiming that Abraham literally saw his “day” thousands of years before he was born. He was purposefully using figurative, semi-ambiguous language, just as he does several times in the Gospels.
How many persons does God have to be in order for this God to be personal towards you?
Again, it’s because God is “invisible” and “dwells in unapproachable light” that he sent Jesus to reveal himself to man, as the one mediator between God (who is the Father) and man.
I find your “yearnings” puzzling, and am really unsure what you mean when you say “it takes away the meal and replaces it with hypotheticals.” I’m perfectly content having Jesus’ God (the Father) - and no other God - as my God. Jesus’ God is enough (or rather, more than enough!) to satisfy my deepest yearnings. But had it not been for Jesus, I would not be able to say that, since it was Jesus who made him known to me.
So the diversity of light is the reason why you think light’s being polychromatic has anything at all to do with how many persons God is? I’m not sure I understand your argument.
But how do you even know your handling of the metaphor is appropriate? How do you know that this is what John was trying to convey to us when he said, “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all”?
I realize that; but I really think you’re the one stretching the metaphor beyond its limit and trying to make it mean something that it was never intended to convey when originally used by John. And rather than arguing why you think John was trying to convey through this metaphor what you think we should understand by it, you’ve simply said, “a quick glance at the universe around, including light, reveals just how diverse it is. I don’t need to expound on common sense.”
Both those who hold to the deity of Christ and those who don’t have written volumes on this verse alone. But if you’re curious as to how Unitarians understand John 1:1, I recommend the following as a short summary/defense of the Unitarian position:
In a nutshell, I deny that the logos, prior to becoming flesh (v. 14), refers to Jesus, the Son of God. The logos is just that - the spoken divine word of God by which God brought everything into existence (Ps. 33:6, 9; 107:20; 147:15, 18-19; Isa. 55:10-11; Peter 3:5). “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…and God SAID,” etc. As such, God’s word or logos (which is divine in nature and thus said by John to be theos) is the expression of his wisdom, plan and character. The word logos is used throughout John’s Gospel to denote a spoken word, and I submit it means the same thing in John’s poetic prologue. It’s no more a personal being with a mind and will separate from the Father (whom I believe the word was “with” in the “beginning”) than “wisdom” is in Proverbs 8 (which was also “with” God). But it was this (God’s word) which, figuratively speaking, “became flesh” and was embodied or “incarnated” in a human person when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb by the “power of the Most High.” Christ, as the “word made flesh,” is the ultimate and definitive communication of God’s heart and mind to mankind.
But since you seem to think the logos in John 1:1-3 is to be equated with Jesus in a pre-incarnate state, what do you think the expression ho theos in the expression “the word was with God” refers to in these verses? Does the word denote a person (as it seems to do throughout John’s Gospel - e.g., Jn. 3:16; 3:34; 4:24; 6:46; 11:22; 14:1; 17:3) or do you think it denotes multiple persons?
Hopefully, then, you can better understand why I don’t find your argument (that since God is compared to light, God should be understood as multi-personal) compelling, either. In both cases, I believe the metaphor is being stretched beyond its limit to convey something that it was never intended by the author to convey.
I’ve gotten weary of dealing with, for a second turn, discussing your views vs. mine and getting nowhere very fast, though certainly it is not your fault I’m sure; and so I’m going to cut to the root of it all. From all of this argument I can boil it down to about three simple points.
This is because you don’t understand me. You won’t understand my view of God, until you understand me. I doubt you will; for much the same reason you made zero progress in the Soulsleep thread.
I genuinely find the Unitarian position on God to be boring. Not just superficially boring - but existentially, artistically dull, through and through. The reasons why this is so; is simply not something I could probably explain to you, for much the same reason you simply couldn’t understand why I had such utter abhorrence for what I feel is the most abominable post-mortem idea to arise since Hopeless Damnation; and yet I simply couldn’t explain it to you in a way you could understand.
I simply do not see room for God to be infinitely beautiful under the Unitarian position. In fact, when I consider him from that view he loses almost all of his beauty altogether. In being nothing but invisible, distant, and nothing but separated from me (except by a non-divine, not-god version of Jesus, whom under the Unitarian idea is a diminished thing compared to the beliefs I currently hold) and incapable of having any direct relationship with me.
And so we get into the other reasons why the Unitarian idea of God, cannot be my god, because any god I have must be omnipotent enough, and loving enough to be my god directly, as “his/her/it-self”, with no middle man between me, and him, except Himself. Nothing you’ve presented thus far has given me even the slightest hint of convincement that the Unitarian God is even capable of such a divine relationship. In fact it has only convinced me that he is thoroughly incapable of it; either by choice (which I find hateful of him) or by inability, which is terrible in its own right.
If Jesus is not God, then I have no direct relationship with God beyond some divine equivalent of “text messaging”, if even that, with Jesus as being little more than a divine cellphone to which I barely even have the right number. And never in any section of eternity or beyond it will I ever have any semblance of a relationship with him beyond such an empty thing as that.
The Unitarian God is incapable of loving me in the way I require love. Therefore I cannot define him as infinite love, and therefore I cannot define him as God - who is love.
If Jesus is God however, every bit of that changes, and quite for the positive.
At the end of the day, the Unitarian God expresses the very same attributes that make me hate Soul Sleep.
“Separation”
That and, an invisible, homogenous, infinite mass of sentient aether - which insists on being nothing but that - cannot by default be anything but an invisible, homogenous, infinite mass of sentient aether. I simply see no possible way in which this allows any room for God to be infinitely beautiful, even in the reasonable sense…one that excludes the incessant need to be absurd in the whole “dog-god” argument.
Your yearnings might be met, and you don’t understand my yearnings. You’re welcome to your contentment. But that you are content does not mean I have to be - it does not make me a lesser believer to be honestly unsatisfied with the ideas you’ve presented. If I wanted your interpretation of God, I’d be a Unitarian Universalist, I’d quit Christianity. But to be quite honest, I wouldn’t even be a Unitarian Universalist. I’d most likely be a some sort of Wiccan.
At the end of the day, the Unitarian God simply doesn’t meet my needs. In fact he can’t, certainly not directly Himself.
You’re content, your view leaves me very uncontent. That is why.
Hermits talk to themselves and to God. Don’t people in solitary confinement go mad?
My body needs to relate to the atmosphere by breathing. My person needs to relate to other persons by breathing of a different sort. It’s no accident that Spirit means “breath”. My own spirit joins me to myself. A different spirit joins me to my family, nation, species. And the Holy Spirit joins me to God.
Ok, let’s say “humanity” is the one existential substance, quality or nature which makes a person Human, and without which they couldn’t be considered Human.
Corresponding to this let’s say that “deity,” “divinity” or “god” (all lower case) is the one existential substance, quality or nature which makes a person Deity/God, and without which they couldn’t be considered Deity/God.
Now, if there are 6 billion perfectly unique persons who each fully possess the one existential substance, quality or nature which makes a person Human, and without which a person couldn’t be considered Human (i.e., “humanity”), then how many Humans is that? Answer: 6 billion. There would be 6 billion persons who are all “Human” (i.e., having the nature of a human) because they all share in one humanity, but there would not be just one Human. There would be 6 billion different Humans.
And if there are 6 billion perfectly unique persons who each fully posses the one existential substance, quality or nature which makes a person Deity/God, and without which a person couldn’t be considered Deity/God (i.e., “divinity,” “deity” or “god”), then how many Deities/Gods is that? Answer: 6 billion. There would be 6 billion persons who are all fully “divine” in the sense of having “deity,” “divinity” or “god” (i.e., the one existential substance or nature that makes a person God), but there would not be just one God. There would be 6 billion different Gods (just as there would be 6 billion different Humans).
Lefein’s position (as I understand it) seems to be that there are at least three - possibly an infinite number - of persons who each fully share in the one “existential substance” or nature which makes a person Deity/God (just as there are 6 billion persons who each fully share in the one existential substance, quality or nature - i.e., humanity - which makes a person Human), but that there is only one Deity/God, not 3 or more. But if it’s true that 6 billion people all sharing in one “humanity” means 6 billion different Humans, I’m not sure how 6 billion persons all sharing in one “deity,” divinity" or “god” (i.e., the existential substance that makes a person God) doesn’t make 6 billion different Gods.
Billion of humans, one Humanity. Many members, one body, one Church, one Bride. Like marries like. The Bridegroom is like the Bride, and the Bride is the spiritual union of many.
Humans connect using language. Babel marred the connection. Pentecost begins to restore it. Gadgets like mobile phones are nothing but crutches used by cripples. We hunger for connection in a world of broken relationships. If the connection between me and my neighbor is loving and perfect, we will be two persons, one being, understanding and being understood. Every good marriage hints at the truth, beauty and divine power of this. Mum-and-Dad. Grandma-and-Grampa. Two people, one being.
They don’t just share one existential substance, but also one existential identity; that of The Supreme Being. In exactly the same way that both Love and Justice share the same existential identity; God, The Supreme Being (God is Love, God is Justice). Just to clarify.
If 6 billion persons possessing that which makes a person “human” (i.e., “humanity”) means that there are 6 billion humans, then it would seem that 6 billion persons possessing that which makes a person “God” means that there are 6 billion Gods.
How does this not follow?
But how do you understand and define “being” in the expression “Supreme Being?” Does it denote a substance, a nature, a person, an existence, all of the above, or something else entirely? Or do you believe it is simply undefinable?
I’ll be responding to your other posts as soon as I can; been pretty busy lately. Loving the discussion, though!
Given that The Supreme Being is God, the being of God is probably quite undefinable, at least in any sort of measurable way.
The best way I can probably express the “identity” of God, is probably by making a language comparison.
The identity is to God, as definition is to a word.
The persons are to God, as synonyms are to a word.
Take for example; The English definition for “building in which a family lives and dwells”; you have house, abode, habitat, edifice, dwelling, residence, home. They are unique synonyms, but they are all synonyms of the same definition, or linguistic identity. The identity of God, is his sentient definition. The persons of God are his synonymous terms which express that sentient definition (identity); The Supreme Being.
Likewise, mostly, lol. Even if I am probably coming across far harsher than I intend to. Its just my writing style really, I can’t help it. Its the old “fantasy writer” habit I guess. I promise, it is in no effort to throw molten ingots of iron at you.
I really haven’t a clue, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest to discover there are an infinite number of gods in GOD. If, one day, “we shall know as we are known”, then we also will join the heavenly throng. How can we know God as well as he knows us unless we somehow share his divine nature?
Christ does not wed a worm, a frog or a monkey. He does not join himself to some lesser species. He weds the Church. She is radiant with the Holy Spirit. She breathes the same breath as Christ himself. She shares his table and his bed. She also is divine. She is a goddess in her glory. She looks just like her Father.
“God became a man to make men gods.” Athanasius
“become gods for (God’s) sake, since (God) became man for our sake.” Gregory of Nazianzus
“I (God) am the food of grown men, grow, and thou shalt feed upon Me, nor shalt thou convert Me, like the food of thy flesh, into thee, but thou shalt be converted into Me.” Augustine
“he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature,” Peter
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’…"
I wasn’t talking about a “measurable way,” though. I simply wanted to know what you understood by the word “being” in the expression “Supreme Being.” If, as you’re using the word in this expression, the word really is indefinable, then it really doesn’t convey anything intelligible or meaningful to me. It could mean anything or nothing. So insofar as a discussion like this goes, the word may as well have no meaning at all if you’re unable to define the term and explain what you mean by it. So if the word is, to you, really indefinable, it doesn’t actually “clarify” anything (although that’s what you say you were trying to do, right?). It’s simply a roadblock to any further discussion.
So do you really not think that any of the words I provided (a substance, a nature, a person, an existence) or any other words would be in any way useful or appropriate for understanding what you mean by “being” in the expression “Supreme Being?”
But who or what is the “word” that God is in your analogy? If the “synonyms” (plural) are persons then wouldn’t the “word” (singular) refer to one person? Are you saying God is both one person and many persons (perhaps even an infinite number)? Or are you saying that the “word” is not a person but the “synonyms” of the word are?
You misunderstood what I meant by “measurable way”. I’m finite, therefore I cannot fully explain the infinite. I cannot fully define God; The Supreme Being, and so I stated quite honestly that he is undefinable “in any measurable way” - I can only offer what I currently know.
I’ve stated before that the identity of God is that of being The Supreme Being. To which, I tried to express what “being” and “identity” would be with my “word” analogy.
The “word” that God is in my analogy is “God” in all of who he is. The I AM, that God is, is his identity; The Supreme Being. I cannot fully expound on what it means for the I AM to be the I AM.
I am saying what reality in linguistics states. One Definition, many synonyms that are that one definition.
One God, One Supreme Being; many synonymous divine persons, and divine attributes that are that one supreme being.
If there is a person which is the definition, or “word”, then it is one more synonym amongst the already existing synonyms; the synonyms are “word” and the word" is every synonym that expresses it.
Another way of putting it, following your train of thought through mine, would be that; The Person, or definition, of God permeates in total synonymy all persons of God. All persons of God permeate in total synonymy The Person, or definition of God.
Yeah, I did have a really hard time trying to understand why you so abhorred the idea that our conscious existence might be temporarily suspended at death before being permanently restored to us at the resurrection of the dead. I thought you just found the idea of temporary non-existence intolerable because you thought it entailed a temporary separation from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (which I don’t think is the case).
I have an even more difficult time trying to understand why you find my view (i.e., that the “one God” is Jesus’ God, our Father in heaven) in any way “existentially boring” or “artistically dull, through and through.”
Your calling the Unitarian position on God “dull” reminded me of something you said elsewhere:
So how many “notes” does God have to “be” before the song that you want to hear is being played? I mean, according to your music analogy above, a biune God would only be playing a two-note song, and a triune God would only be playing a three-note song (like “Hot Cross Buns” ).
Explain what you mean by “direct relationship.” Would you say you have a “direct relationship” with the Father? I mean, don’t you pray to him? If you don’t think you have a direct relationship with the Father, do you think you ever will have one?
Again, do you have a “personal relationship” with the Father (who is the “invisible God” of Col 1:15 and 1 Tim 6:16), or not?
Wait, I don’t think I’ve said that we will never be able to see or directly (in person) interact with the Father. That’s not my view. I simply don’t believe he can be seen or talked to in person (i.e., face to face, standing in his presence) while we are in this mortal, sinful state. No mortal man can see his face and live. Moses was only allowed to see his back (Ex 33:18-23). But when we’re made immortal and sinless I think we’ll be able to see him just as Christ and the holy angels can see him now. And until then, we can know what he’s like and relate to him more fully by looking to Christ, who made him known. If you’ve seen Christ, you’ve seen the Father, since Christ made known the Father’s character and purpose.
Again, the Unitarian God is Jesus’ God (our Father in heaven). Are you separated from the Father now?
It’s almost as if Paul wrote Eph 4:6 just to answer your objection: “…one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
Paul’s pretty much refuting (or at least seriously undermining) two mistaken ideas in this one brief verse:
That the “one God” is multi-personal (“one God and Father of all”)
That this “one God” is a distant, absentee Father (“who is over all and through all and in all”)
That you seem to view Jesus’ God - the Father - as nothing more than an invisible, homogenous, infinite mass of sentient aether concerns me.
I’m not actually surprised that you’d be some sort of Wiccan if you “quit Christianity,” since (if I’m not mistaken) many Wiccans are either pantheistic or polytheistic. And your view of God is, I believe, disturbingly close to polytheism. Actually, like Trinitarianism, I would say it either is polytheism simply masquerading as something else to try and fit with Biblical revelation (e.g., “the Lord our God, the Lord is one”) or it’s really some form of Modalism.
If each person of the Supreme Being is a synonym for the “word” that is the “Supreme Being,” then it seems to me that each person must actually be the same Person who is the “Supreme Being.” They’re all synonymous with the one “word,” so they must all be the same Person. So for you, it seems as if the Supreme Being is really one divine Person expressing himself in a multitude of different ways. Sounds a lot like Modalism.
Yeah, it’s becoming clearer to me now that you may actually be a Modalist (“The Person” kinda gives it away, to me). It’s funny how with a little discussion and probing the multi-personal God in which most Christians claim to believe turns out to really be either a single divine Person (“The Person”) expressing himself in different “modes” (or as you call them, “synonyms”), or else multiple Gods who all share a single divine nature (just as there are multiple humans who all share a single human nature).
I apologize for not responding to your post sooner. You wrote:
I’m not sure I understand your position. Do you believe the Father and the Son are the same Person or two different Persons?
Concerning this verse and its context I wrote (in response to Jason):
In what sense is the Son “exactly like” the Father? I believe they are both perfectly sinless in character, and also that they share the same “all authority in heaven and on earth.” I understand the word hupostasis in Heb 1:3 to denote the “subsistence” of God’s moral nature, or his foundational moral attribute (which, according to John, is “love”). And that which is the “express image,” “representation” or “impress” (charaktēr) of something else cannot, I don’t think, be at the same time the original. As Paul says, Christ is “the image (eikōn) of the invisible God.” The “invisible God” is, I believe, Jesus’ God (our Father in heaven).
These would be photos of the same person, though. Is it your view that the Father and the Son are the same Person, or two different Persons?
To borrow the language of Unitarian Anthony Buzzard, my view is that “the Holy Spirit is the personal, operational presence and power of God extended through the risen Christ to believers.” As such, it can be referred to as the Spirit of both God and of his Son, since it is through this Spirit that the united will of God and Jesus is carried out in and among people.
Preferably, a song worthy of being called God, what ever that song may be I cannot say for certain; only that a one note song is not a song.
A direct relationship is one where God, and “Not God” (myself) are in true union.
Because Christ is God, I do have a direct relationship.
If I don’t have a direct relationship with the Father, if Unitarianism is true, I never will, under the unitarian position; I feel it would be impossible.
A Unipersonal God cannot be Panentheistic, so I could not have a union that way. And a Unipersonal God cannot be “God-Man” as Christ is, so I could not have a union that way.
I do, because God (even as The Father) is not Unitarian, therefore I have a relationship with him through Christ - who is God, and therefore I have a relationship with God, whoever and however he is; even as The Father.
I don’t see how it is possible for God to be seen at all if he’s stuck in a state of Unipersonal Invisibility; if Unitarianism is true, then the unchanging God would be a perpetually invisible, homogenous singularity; and it would necessitate that even Jesus could not see God (being a “Not-God”), and even the Angels (being “Not-Gods”) could not see God, and we would never see him.
No, because Christ is God incarnate, therefore I am not separated from The Father, who is also God.
If anything, that tells me God is far from Unipersonal and Unitarian.
If he’s Unipersonal - Unitarian; that’s exactly what he is.
I’d say you’re wrong, or else that you simply haven’t yet been able to understand me.
It isn’t Modalism any more than Trinitarianism is. Modalism necessitates that the expressions be “masks” an “either/or” figure.
I believe the following;
God is a synonymous unanimous oneness of persons and attributes, who interact and exist co-existentially, co-essentially, interpanentheistically, and interpanenexistentially in heterogenous synonymy; especially synonymy of one will and one identity; God, the omniessential supreme being.
“The Person” was an attempt to reach you on your own terminology.
But I am not a Modalist. The synonymous persons of God are fully capable of interaction with one another, and eternally co-exist at the same time; they are not modes or masks. If there is any modalism involved, it is only that each of the divine persons may take what ever forms, wear what ever clothes they wish to wear; from pillar of fire, to pillar of cloud, to burning bush, to otherwise. But a change of clothes isn’t a change of person, in the existential sense of person.
I think your final quote of me, answers this question. But to answer you directly:
I believe that the Father and the Son are two different divine Persons. The Son is divine in virtue of the fact that He is the “only begotten God”. The Father of all is unbegotten, and is “the only true God”. Yet Jesus is just as divine as the Father.
When dogs beget offspring those offspring are dogs, and they are canine. When people beget offspring, those offspring are people, and they are human. When God begat His only-begotten Son, that Son is theos(deity) and is divine. I’m using theos with reference to “the kind of thing” that the Father and the Son are. “Theos” is used in two different senses in John 1:1. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with the Theos and the logos was theos. The first Theos with the article refers to God the Father (the only true God). The second theos refers to the kind of thing which both the Father and the Son are. Perhaps it would be correct to say the same hypostasis but two different divine Persons. This is the way I understood Justin Martyr. He and other pre-Nicene Christians understood the begetting of the Son as the first act of God “before all ages”. My understanding is that this first act marked the beginning of time, and since there was no “before the beginning of time” then there never was a TIME at which the Son did not exist.
So my Christology is that of the earliest Christians. I am not a Unitarian, Binitarian,Trinitarian, Modalist, or Arian. My position is simple: The only true God begat a Son who is an exact imprint of His Father, who bears the stamp of God’s nature. It is for that reason that “if you’ve seen the Son, you’ve seen the Father” — not because the two are the same divine Individual (as in Modalism) but because they are exactly alike in their nature.
Would any finite number of notes be enough to make a song worthy of being called God?
You seem to be of the view that Christ’s being God allows us to be in “true union” with the Father because he provides us with an ontological or existential “link” between ourselves and God. But our being ontologically not-God was never a problem that needed fixing, or a gap that needed “bridging” in order for us to achieve what you call “true union” with God. The problem was never the ontological “distance” between man and God (e.g., that he is infinite and we are finite, or that he is “Supreme Being” as you say, and we are not). The problem was moral and relational, not ontological. As far as one’s existence goes, a finite being can never be any closer to an infinite being than it already is. So Christ’s being God does not solve such a problem because it was never the problem. Christ didn’t need to be God in order to be the one mediator between God and men (that’s why Paul refers to him as a “man” rather than a “God-Man” when he speaks of him as being the “one mediator between God and men”), and to reconcile us to God in the sense of which Scripture speaks. His being a “God-man” (even if this were possible, although I don’t think it is) would not have gotten us any closer to God or in any truer union with God in the sense that we needed to be because of our being “alienated from the life of God.”
And even if someone did consider this to be a problem, it’s a problem that could never be fixed. To be an infinite, necessary being and to be a finite, contingent being are mutually exclusive states of being/existence. And an infinite, necessary being can never cease to be an infinite, necessary being, nor can a finite, contingent being ever cease to be a finite, contingent being. To say that any person can be both fully infinite and necessary and fully finite and contingent is, I believe, to talk nonsense. Also, it is meaningless to speak of a person or thing as having two natures (i.e., two mutually exclusive inherent characters or basic constitutions, or two mutually exclusive sets of properties or attributes by which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is). God has his own divine nature which can be nothing other than it is, and which defines him as “God” rather than something else. When God created every finite creature he gave each different creature a single unique nature which defines it as what it is. And just as the nature of God is to have one nature (not two or three or more), so the nature of a human being is to have one nature (not two or three or more). By virtue of what God chose to create when he created the first man, a man has one nature, just like God has only one nature by virtue of his eternal existence.
I believe Scripture teaches that because Christ is a sinless man who made known to us the Father’s true character, we can have a direct relationship with the Father. Christ doesn’t have to be a “God-man” in order for us to be reconciled to the Father and experience fellowship with him, because the ontological gap between God and man was never the problem. It was in our mind that we were alienated from and hostile to God (Col 1:21). When this problem is solved, we achieve “true union” with the Father and enjoy fellowship with him. But again, it wasn’t necessary for Christ to be God to remedy this situation. It was necessary for Christ to be sinless so that he could be God’s perfect human representative/ambassador, but his being ontologically God would not have been the solution to any real problem.
Why can’t a Unipersonal God be panentheistic? How many persons does God have to be in order to be panentheistic?
Actually, if it were possible for a “God-Man” to exist, I’m not sure why a Unipersonal God couldn’t be a “God-Man” just as much as a multi-personal God could. But I believe it’s impossible for any kind of God - whether Unipersonal or multi-personal - to be a “God-Man” (which makes about as much sense as a “Man-Dog” would). And the mere existence of a “God-Man” wouldn’t solve the problem of our spiritual alienation from God, anyway. It’s not an ontological problem that needed to be remedied but a problem of the mind and heart.
You seem to be confusing “relationship with God” with being a step closer to God on the ontological scale of being. But the mere existence of what was before a “missing link” between God and man would not solve the problem with which Scripture presents us. It would not bring us any closer to God in the sense that we needed to be closer to God. The only “problem” this would solve is, I believe, a problem of your own making: “How can we have ‘true union’ with God unless God becomes both God and not-God at the same time, and thus becomes an ‘ontological link’ between God’s nature and man’s nature?” Not only is this impossible, but it wouldn’t give us “true union” or a “direct relationship” with God. It would simply mean there was one person in existence who is an “ontological link” between God and man on the “scale of being.” This wouldn’t bring anyone closer to God in the sense that we need to be brought closer to God (see 1 Pet 3:18; cf. 2:24-25).
Of course a being who was “stuck in a state of invisibility” could never be seen (by virtue of the fact that he was “stuck” in this state), but why do you think the Father (who is a unipersonal being) is “stuck in a state of invisibility?” Just because he’s invisible to us in this mortal state of existence doesn’t mean he will always will invisible to us. I believe God manifests himself in a visible, localized state in heaven where he can be seen by those not-God beings who, whether by virtue of their creation or by some change they have undergone, have been made fit to dwell there (e.g., Jesus and the angels):
“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (Mt. 18:10). (in contrast to, say, Moses who was only allowed to see God’s back)
Again, it seems evident that the “separation” of which you have in mind is not so much relational or moral but rather ontological. It appears that for you, the “problem” that needed to be solved was our ontological distance from God on the scale of being. But I don’t think this kind of “distance” or “separation” ever was a problem. Nor do I see Scripture as revealing it to be a problem that needed remedying. Of course, you may say that they were both problems, but I think this would need to be proved. Scripture clearly affirms the former, but I see no revelation of the latter.
If you would elaborate on this, it would be helpful. Sometimes it seems you’re just disagreeing with me to disagree. If the Father is not multi-personal, and the Father is the “one God,” then your position that the one God is multi-personal is, I think, seriously undermined (and not only is the “one God” said by Paul to be the Father, but the “one God” is differentiated from “the one Lord, Jesus Christ” - 1 Cor 8:6; cf. John 17:3). And if the Father is over all and through all and in all, then your position that a Unipersonal God is necessarily distant and absent is also, I think, seriously undermined.
Of course Jesus’ God (the Father) is unipersonal. He’s one person, not two or three or more. But who said anything about the Father being “a mass of sentient aether?” Is this how you view every other person of your multi-personal God except for Jesus? Just a big mass of sentient aether?
Would you agree with the following? “God is a multiplicity of persons who all share the same omniessential attributes that make a being ‘God’ rather than something else.”
You again speak of God as being the “supreme being.” Since I don’t think you’ve defined “being” for me, I’ll just have to go with a dictionary definition: “The quality or state of having existence” or “something that actually exists.” Now, I don’t think multiple persons could be said to share the same existence (or identity) by virtue of the fact that their first-person perspectives are unique and different rather than the same. By virtue of their separate first-person perspectives/minds/self-awareness as different persons, they would each have a separate and unique (rather than identical) existence. Even if they all shared the same nature (just as all humans share the same nature) or possessed the same inherent attributes and properties, they would not share the same exact existence. So what you actually have are multiple supreme beings (plural) - i.e., multiple supreme personal existences who share the same nature and attributes.
You speak of “synonym of one will and one identity.” By this do you mean they each share the same will? Or do you mean they each have a separate will, but that they are all willing the same thing? Because I believe it is pretty clearly revealed in Scripture that God and Jesus have different wills, but that Jesus’ will is fully submitted to God’s will.
So you were trying to help me understand you/your position better by speaking as if you believe all of the persons you think are God are all one Person (which would be consistent with your “word/synonym” analogy,I think), when that’s not at all the case? I don’t think that’s really the best way to reach mutual understanding of each other’s positions!
I don’t think you can really blame me for thinking you were a Modalist when your analogy involves “God” being a “word” and the multiple persons of God all being synonymous with this “word.” That sounds to me like one Person simply expressing himself in different ways.
But if you believe in multiple divine persons and not simply one divine person expressing himself in various ways, then what I think you have are actually Supreme Beings (plural) - i.e., multiple divine beings who, by virtue of their being separate persons and each having a unique self-awareness, are existentially different from one another but who all share one divine nature just as all humans share one human nature.
Its the old “fantasy writer” habit I guess. I promise, it is in no effort to throw molten ingots of iron at you.
).