The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Trinitarian Christianity leads to Universalism? (Or not?)

Theology Philosophical
#61

Thanks Luke. Sorry if I’ve been annoying or too persistent. I was looking to understand what you think it means to be a ‘person’ (as oppossed to a rock, a tree, a cow, or a dolphin; for these are also each “a substantial reality in its own right”).

Luke: The Council of Chalcedon declared hypostasis and persona (the Latin word from which we get person) to be synonymous, therefore it’s now entirely legitimate to say the three persons of the Trinity.

Tom: Indeed. That God is three “persons” defines orthodoxy, which is why I was confused about your “God is ‘a’ person” claim, i.e., God is “one” person.

Thanks for the convo!

Tom

#62

Robin Parry aka Gregory MacDonald writes this about the Trinity in his book Worshiping Trinity

(p72)

(Emphasis mine.) Note very carefully what Parry is saying, he’s saying that the ultimate reality about God is that he is three in one, the Trinity. He doesn’t say the ultimate reality about God is that he is love and secondarily that he is three in one. Even more interestingly even when he has the chance to come out say God is essentially love he doesn’t but makes this observation instead.

(p77)

It’s good to know I’m in good company in my arguments against reducing God to a single characteristic. :sunglasses:

#63

Luke: …he’s saying that the ultimate reality about God is that he is three in one, the Trinity. He doesn’t say the ultimate reality about God is that he is love…

Tom: To me, Luke, to say “three in one” is to say “love.” The two expressions are equivalent. That’s all I’ve been trying to say.

Tom

#64

But if the “two expressions are equivalent” why isn’t that expressed in the creeds or in the history of Trinitarian theology?

#65

You mean like why isn’t the word “trinity” (which is also equivalent to “three in one”) in any of the Creeds as shorthand for “three persons, one nature”?

My bad, the history of the discussion too. Well, in that case, it is in the discussion. The Cappadocians (and others, namely, Augustine–as poorly as he embraced the consequences of it) do describe the three persons as one in the bond of love.

Tom

#66

Nice dodge, but still no evidence for your assertion of equivalence.

#67

Ha! Two guys smoking online while discussing the Trinity. Love it.

All I’m saying, Luke, is that ‘love’ can stand in as the name for that which binds the three and constitutes their oneness, otherwise representing the ‘act’ constitutive of trinitarian oneness.

I respect those who say “three hypostases in one ousia” and refuse to elaborate any further. But an unelaborated Creed is not very meaningful. To the extent that the Fathers elaborate on the Creeds quite a bit (the Creeds only distill long conversations and debates by which believers defined their faith), they didn’t content themselves with a bare an unelaborated minimalism. The words of the Creeds mean something. And I’d love to know what the word “person” (or hypostasis) means to you. Given the conversations the Fathers engaged in, I find a cluster of three words that are used almost interchangeably: ‘beauty’, ‘goodness’, and ‘love’. I’d be happy using any of these to describe God essentially, for they are essentially a single reality viewed through different lenses that focus on its different aspects. I feel pretty situated in tradition and the Fathers in this.

Tom

#68

I assume then God is not anything? He is not just. He is not wise. He is not love. He’s trinity but nothing else. I’m not sure what the argument really proves.

Luke, is it not an argument from silence that you rest upon; the creeds never minimized God to love?
The nature (as I understand Pratt and TGB) is that three persons loving each other in eternity constitutes the nature of such a Divine being as “love”. If the Creeds did not define it as so then what’s to prove - that he’s also full of hatred?

Again, all I see is a card being laid out on the table and it’s a H of spades (hate). For if God is love then the Universalist is probably right about God’s inclination toward his “good” creation (gone bad) - namely to reconcile ALL THINGS.

Aug

#69

Don’t Mormons and JW’s argue along the same lines when they question the creeds themselves? Why is the Trinity not spelled out by those who are superior to those who wrote fallible creeds (namely the Apostles)?

So we say from the text of the Apostles we can see the Trinity is conveyed. So why is it non-evidential to say that from the text of the Apostles God being love is conveyed? Or God is Just?

Just some thoughts.

Aug

#70

Is Jesus the way, the truth, and the life? Or is he merely…metaphorically speaking?

If he is not The Way, in a literal sense, and he is speaking only metaphorically concerning his being The Way – I need say no more, I think the obvious conclusions could be drawn from weakening the strength of Christ’s statement from his literal meaning (which can contextually be drawn), to a metaphoric or whimsical statement of his being.

God the Son is the image of the Father, what we see of the Son, we see of the Father. So surely, what Jesus is, the Father is also - as far as the essential nature of his being is. In summary, God (as Christ) is literally The Way, to God.

But what of Truth, and Life? Well the same applies for both of these as it does with “Way” - if we weaken the position of the statements to whimsy, or metaphor, or representation, we weaken the position of the whole pillar upon which Christianity is founded. Surely God is Life, and surely God is Truth, as much as he is surely the Way.

As for Truth, God is foundational, and foundational to all existence. Truth is “what is” and God certainly “is” and always has been. I AM that I AM speaks quite clearly of God being Truth in all forms. Christ is the Truth, as he says in his own red inked words, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, and certainly The Father as the majestic, numinous “I AM” speaks well enough of his nature as Truth by easily understanding that Truth is what is, and what is “real”.

So, here we find that God (in any form, whether Trinitarian, or otherwise) is Truth, Life, and Way, and must be so lest we weaken the foundations of the faith.

Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, these are the words of Jesus. This works for both man who is made in God’s image, as well as God who is the source, and model of that image. It is out of the abundance of God’s heart that God speaks. When God creates, he usually tends to speak, and so what ever God spoke into being, was a thing already existing in his heart, already existing in his very being, an expression of it even. God’s heart is just as infinite as he is, and so his heart is in essence just as large as his being, his heart for all intents and purposes is his being, much as the heart of a man is easily thought to be his being.

With this in mind it is very safe to conclude that Truth and Life are infact essential to his being, even his very nature, and therefore He is indeed Truth, and Life; truth and life having been expressed out of the infinite abundance of his infinite heart into the creative weave of existence - Creation.

And even if Truth, and Life were not essentially “himself”, it at the very least is arguable that it is so integrally a part of his infinite heart, as infinite as himself, that for him to express truths and living things into being would require that they already exist abundantly in his heart to express as Truth and Life. But even the least form of argument, that Truth and Life are merely expressions, and not central or essential to his being as is usually thought to be the case when it comes to Truth and Life (as Jesus, God the Son and son of God expressed when saying; “I am the Truth! I am the Life!”) it is still more than tangible, and more than reasonable to believe that these expressions came out of his infinite being, and so in tantamount should be looked upon as essential.

Now, the meaning of the verse (Matthew 12:34) is not contained only or specifically to the heart and mouth, but interpretively it could be extended to expression of any kind, not just the literally vocal. What is in the heart, will express itself outwardly. We ‘express’ something that is already present in our heart to express, and so does God.

All good things come from the Father, all good things come from God. Truth and Life are surely good things, and so surely they come from God. I’d propose that any thing that proceeds from God, would be an expressive act, a creative act - and especially when God speaks a thing into being to create it, it is a creative act. creation does not always involve ex nihilo, for example; we are creative beings as the image of God, and we create blessed circumstances for our neighbors, and create a sense of being appreciated in others by means of compliments, or otherwise when we express; saying things, or doing things in order to produce the desired effect, and of course very few of us…or any at all, can create anything that is “real” out of nothing. Hence conclusively, creation, and expressions need not be exclusively ex nihilo.

In summary; From God, all good, right, true, and real things come. God is all good, right, true, and real things [not necessarily the containers, I am not suggesting Pantheism, but rather the idea that the “Artistry” behind an “Artpiece” is “God” behind the “Container”] and even if he wasn’t, all good, right, true, and real things must come out from such an infinitely abundant source as is God’s heart, that they may as well be essential for the sake of simplicity. And in the case of Truth and Life, we need not try and think of them as things that God “came up with ex nihilo” but as things that were already as much “there” as he was, and is “there”, as infinite as he himself is infinite - and indeed we might think of them as being Himself altogether, or that he Himself is them.

Truth and Life are amongst such essential qualities, or so ludicrously existent and abundant in his infinite being that He may easily and truthfully be described as being Truth and Life; “He is Truth” and “He is Life”.

But what of Love?

Well, as for Love why should it be any different from Truth and Life? Is Love not a good thing also (like Truth and Life) that proceeds forth from the heart of the Father? And really, are Truth and Life and Love all that different from one another when you look at it more closely? Or are Truth and Life and Love just synonymous words that are used to express the beautiful ideal that is so lofty and existent within God (and in a lesser form the images made after him; Man) that it can only be described as God to begin with? Even if that were not so, Love is still not somehow different from Truth and Life when it comes to who God is, or is essentially. If God is the Way, then he is surely Truth and Life, and if he is Truth and Life, then he is surely Love, and why should he not be Love in the most literal, and infinite form? After all, Love is the very thing most often associated with the heart when it comes to the mind of humans, and just like Truth and Life, Love too must come forth out of the infinite heart, and being of the infinite God, for out of the infinite abundance of his infinite heart God speaks, and has spoken Love!

And so God is Love, or else Love is so integrally, and infinitely abundant in his being that he may as well be Love.

<edited a few things for clarity’s sake>

#71

I think it’s significant Robin Parry in either books, doesn’t use the God is essentially love argument. (Any comment Jason?)

Tom, you said:

But the thing is they have, there is the long history of Trinitarian thought. You see I’m on very strong theological and historical ground here, yes there is Augustine’s suggestion of a model of love taken up by Richard St Victor, but that’s as close as you get, you just don’t get theologians at any point saying God is essentially love.

In an interesting tangent I was thinking about the God is love verse fro 1 John 4 (ESV) and was struck by the context:

auggybendoggy,
What’s the “hate card”, why invoke dualism, what makes that a logical necessity?

#72

Luke,
Can you be more specific? What particularly strikes you about the context of that verse?

Sonia

#73

Luke,
I’m sort of thinking out loud so please understand that I’m not saying you believe in hate (although that might be true). I simply don’t understand the stance of those who try to avoid the necessity of human understanding regarding “love”.

I say that Calvinists play the H of spades because it’s the only logical conclusion if one denies that God is love. Certainly that’s John’s point that we can love and if that cannot be translated to human understanding then God is insufficient in communicationg to man. But we know from nature that to love one another is to do what is just and merficul towards each other…But not God.

If you hold that God is not love (or cannot be reduced to one characteristic) then it must be that God is also hate. What else could John have meant except that we should walk in love because God is love.

Again, as I undersand you it’s impossible for you to claim

God is Just. -

For that would be reductionism.

#74

Luke: But the thing is they have, there is the long history of Trinitarian thought. You see I’m on very strong theological and historical ground here, yes there is Augustine’s suggestion of a model of love taken up by Richard St Victor, but that’s as close as you get, you just don’t get theologians at any point saying God is essentially love.

Tom: That God is essentially love is the heart and soul of Richard’s view. Why does he think the Father necessarily/essentially begets the Son at all? Because to love alone is a self-contradictory notion to him. And since he assumes God is love, he argues God must be a multiplicity of persons. His trinitarianism is motivated by the conviction that God is essentially love.

Let me ask you two related questions, Luke

  1. What problems does the claim that God is essentially love create you for?

and relatedly but differently,

  1. ***What problems or issues specific to the doctrine of God do you think need to be addressed but which cannot be explained plausibly if God is believed to be love essentially ***?

Lastly, I’m not interesting in “proving” my view. Rather I only want to demonstrate that it is plausible (philosophically and theologically) and that it rests on good patrisitc authority (even if it represents only ONE stream within a larger set of views compatible with orthodoxy). If someone wants to disbelief that God is essentially love, that’s fine with me. But to say that it’s unorthodox, or bad theology, or not plausible is a different matter.

Tom

#75

Just a mental note to myself that I got distracted working somewhere else and accidentally dropped this discussion (mainly with Luke), and want to return to it eventually!

(I was looking for material in another post, and thought this might be the thread; it wasn’t, but thus I recalled this thread existed. :smiley: )