The Evangelical Universalist Forum

JRP addresses recent metaphysical crits of trinitarianism

Theology Philosophical
#61

The distinction is that in scriptural eschatology, persons do not cease to exist. When God is altogether in all, the persons though ‘deified’ in a lesser sense (as the EOx like to stress) still exist as distinct and derivative persons.

The annihilation of which I was speaking is the kind of re-ascendence taught by some varieties of pantheism, though, which consider ‘creation’ to be some kind of ‘fall’ in itself that has to be repaired by the cessation of personal existence. (And then, denying that there is in fact some kind of substantial difference between final reality and apparent reality, they conclude in various ways that apparent reality is only an illusion.)

There would have been no point to God creating distinctly personal derivative persons if the individual person-ness did not continue. Even in the Trinity, which is a substantial singularity, the persons are distinctly personal.

However, we don’t exist now as independent “individuals”; though in rebellion we tend to seek just that kind of “individuality”. Our distinct person-ness is already (and always has been) dependent on union with God, both immediately and through natural mediation. Ontologically, we’re going to be in union with God one way or another. The question is whether we will finally be in full personal cooperation with God (and with each other, too!), echoing in our derivative way the unity of the Persons in the singular Deity (especially the subordination of the Son)–or not.

#62

Addendum: reassured Jeff? :slight_smile: I wasn’t talking about the cessation of personal existence as derivative persons distinct from the persons of God. (That would be like modalism, notably. :mrgreen: )

I would be horrified for the ones I love to cease to exist as persons. (Especially the one whom I love the most under God. :slight_smile: )

This has more than a little connection to universalism, too, btw; as well as to what is happening when we sin.

(If I may take small commercial break for a moment: anyone who has a copy of my novel Cry of Justice can read a… mmm… colorful illustrative example of these principles :mrgreen: :laughing: :smiley: , in Chapter 51, “Almost Perfect”, pp 267-272. Especially the last two pages.)

#63

Ah, Ok. when you explain it that way it does sound different than what I had in mind. I didn’t mean to say that we cease to exist, then poof back into existence changed or entirely lose our distinct derivative ‘person-ness’, but more that our (Adamic) “self” is “annihilated” to the extent that we no longer self-identify as anything other than a part (say, a hand) of the body of Christ. We would have a unique personality and role, but our identity is in something entirely other than what we would perhaps now consider “self”. Sort of like a spiritual Borg collective. :laughing:

#64

Yes Jason - thank you :smiley:

Resistance is futile…

#65

Hi Jason. I’d like your thoughts on this post (by someone else) that I’ll reproduce here on the identity of Jesus. I thought I’d post this here, as it seems perhaps a bit more metaphysical in slant than scriptural. Thanks!

"Jesus IS no different from us, has never been. “The first born among many brethren” “As I (Christ) am so are you in this world” “Greater things than these (Jesus’s works) shall you do” “I go to My God and Your God, My Father and Your Father”

As for Jesus the MAN being God. Numbers puts it like this, God is NOT A MAN that he should lie, NOR the SON OF MAN that he should REPENT. Also, Jesus was tempted AND it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to be tempted. God knows all things, yet Jesus doesn’t.

So Jesus the man is not God, for the WORD of God is TRUTH, which was MANIFESTED in JESUS. As the WORD of God is now manifested IN US. (Christ IN US)

Jesus said, “Why are you calling me (Jesus) GOOD? There is NONE that is good save the FATHER that is in HEAVEN”

Jesus had a separate will as we do. “Not my will God but yours be done”

I think there is overwhelming evidence to state that Jesus is the SON OF GOD, manifesting God to the world, and not that JESUS IS GOD.

“God was IN Jesus reconciling the world to himself” - The scripture does not state, that God is or was Jesus.

God cannot DIE. Jesus died. God cannot SIN. Jesus took upon himself, SIN.

Jesus is a literal SYMBOL of HUMANITY in our RISEN STATE. There is ONLY ONE SPIRIT, ONE BODY.

If the TWO BECOME ONE, then we are ONE, there is no seperating us, I have the name of Christ, I am the body of Christ, I am given the Mind of Christ = Christ in ME the HOPE OF GLORY - It is no longer I that lives, but CHRIST.

I see JESUS as the first born among the DEAD. The first born among many brethren.

The entire creation is not waiting for one man Jesus to return, but the MANIFESTATION of the SONS OF GOD, who are the RISEN CHRIST (body).

That’s my take at least. :slight_smile:"

The point he seems to be making here is that Jesus (the physical, human part of Jesus Christ) is only human, but the indwelling presence of God (the Word, Christ) was actually God and is divine. Might this account for the confusion between the trinitarian statement that Jesus was fully God and fully man and the typical non-trinitarian assertion that he was only a man? This may also solve the problem of whether or not Jesus (as God) can die. If the scripture asserts that God can’t die, then only the physical, totally human part of Jesus Christ died, but the spirit of God within him did not, as this was truly God.
Is this making any sense? If I’m on the right track, then it would seem that the trinitarian vs. non-trinitarian view becomes mainly a matter of semantics; that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully Man, as the trinitarians are fond of asserting, but only in the sense that Jesus (the human man) was fully man and the “Christ” part was fully God.

It seems to me that this is perhaps the simplest solution to the apparent contradictions in scripture over the identity of Jesus Christ. I also wonder if culturally, those I AM statements that Jesus made were either made by the Spirit of God (bearing witness of himself) indwelling the man, Jesus, as the Father’s mouthpiece and/ or made on behalf of God by Jesus as God’s perfect representation/ representative. Sort of like the eldest son of a household being able to speak for the father of the family as if he was the father, or like the authority given Joseph in Egypt (Joseph being a type of Jesus as Son), where he could speak for the king as if he was the king.

Anyway, what do you think? :ugeek:

#66

There’s a lot of material to cover here; much of which has in fact already been covered in previous entries (either here or in the scrip-crit thread).

It’ll take me some time to work up a reply; and I have a lot of ‘work’ work to do in the next few days. It’ll probably be Saturday or Sunday, at the earliest, before I can write back.

This kind of critic is making an appeal to this effect: some kind of adoptionism works just as well (or better even) than ortho-trin’s two-natures doctrine, both in theological coherency (i.e. metaphysically) and in incorporating scriptural testimony.

The short answer from the scriptural side of things, is that the scope of the testimony is much wider than represented in this particular presentation. (I’ll say something about that, too, along the way.)

The short answer from the metaphysical side of things, is that adoptionism isn’t impossible. But it has some serious logical corollaries, including for soteriology, which its own proponents may not want to accept. I’ll talk about that, too.

#67

Ok. I’ll look back through both threads and see what you’ve written that seems to pertain to the topic. I’ve read through the scrip-crit thread once, but I may need to visit it again.

#68

Whew! Finally where I can start addressing particular pieces of that post, Mel!

First, links back to topics brought up by your respondent already discussed here and/or in the script-crit thread.

“The first born among many brethren” – This is discussed in the script-crit thread here and here. It is also discussed here in the meta-crit thread; and here, too from an unusual but very important direction.

“I go to My God and Your God, My Father and Your Father” – Addressed in principle here, here, and here so far in the script-crit thread. In the meta-crit thread I have discussed it already here.

“Also, Jesus was tempted AND it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to be tempted.” – briefly mentioned here in the script-crit thread, with more detail here in the meta-crit thread.

Jesus said, “Why are you calling me (Jesus) GOOD? There is NONE that is good save the FATHER that is in HEAVEN” – no text says “except the Father that is in Heaven” for that incident. (Much less with emphasis on those non-existent words. :wink: ) Otherwise, this has been discussed already in the script-crit thread here.

“God cannot DIE. Jesus died.” – discussed in various places; mostly in the meta-crit thread here and here with followups here, here and here. I also note here in the script-crit thread, where someone with the unique divine name of YHWH tastes death for all persons.

This doesn’t count portions of your own remarks, Mel, that I would point back to prior comments; I thought it would be better to address those in discussion as I go along.

Next, though, I’ll be posting up comments on portions from your respondent that I don’t think I’ve covered specifically in either thread yet.

#69

I’m looking forward to the remarks regarding this poster’s line of thought. I think I know where you might be headed with it, and I think that the conclusion I’m likely to come to, strange as this may sound, is that you’re both right in a way.

Let me say here for the record that I do believe that Jesus Christ was in every practical sense (literally speaking), God (In him, the fulness of Godhood dwells). I just prefer using biblical terms for that, and so I reject the trinitarian label and some of the semantics (wording) without necessarily rejecting the process of reasoning behind it, if that makes any sense. I think true trinitarianism (sans label) is a valid way to understand the nature of God as being multiple and yet One. Even the word Elohim in Hebrew suggests a multiplicity. In fact, I would much rather refer to the multiple nature of the one God with the word Elohim, than Trinity.

I think I’ve fairly well exhausted the crits I’ve read and passed on to you with respect to the identity of Jesus Christ, so I’d like to hear what you have to say on the component that is less frequently addressed; that is, the identity of the Holy Spirit of God. It is clear to me that the Holy Spirit is, in some sense, part of God.
Is there sufficient scriptural evidence to be able to say with confidence that the Holy Spirit is a third actual person that completes trinity? Also, how do the seven spirits of God figure into this equation, and are they seven individual spirits, or are they all encompassed within the Holy Spirit?

#70

Hi Jason,

JeffA once asked me a question that I thought I had answered–and I’d be interested not only in your answer, but in your thoughts on mine.

The Father is a “person” (hypostais), and He’s said to be the fountain of existence (even in the Trinity.)

What I suggested here is that “there is some static, timeless, impersonal aspect to God ( His substance, or subconscious…)”

Is there room for such thoughts in Orthodox Trinitarian Theology?

Is it possible to answer Jeffa’s question without going where I did?

This is more than an Academic question to me right now–I’m questioning everything I thought I believed, and I don’t have the faith I once thought I did.

Plese help me.

#71

For readers following along, Michael set up two threads (with quite a bit of discussion in them, though not from me as of yet):

Could God Be Both Personal And Impersonal?

Essential Qualities of Personhood

Both threads have had so much discussion and debate in them already (all of which I thought was worth reading), that I’m a little fuzzy on where and how to talk about my own thoughts on the topic!

It might be best if I just picked back up with starting Section Two of my Sword to the Heart metaphysics series (the current index page of which can be found in my signature) and go forward from there; since I cover some key elements of the metaphysical side of that discussion in Secs Two and Three.

Meanwhile, I’m sorry I got distracted and never got around to discussing topics from your respondent not already mentioned, Mel. But I’ll be covering various metaphysical topics as I go in the SttH series, so that may be of some relevant help. (Scriptural issues are actually more complicated, though still worth discussing of course. Unsure when I’ll ever get around to it.)

#72

I’d be interested in that Jason.

Thank you.

#73

I also would be interested in hearing you on that, Jason.

Tom