An Analysis of Competing Models of the Trinity + Q&A

[@thoughtsandblogs]

This video is invaluable. Thank you!

[@danieldefonce]

“each one (Divine Person) is sufficient for self-consciousness, will, knowledge, intentionality.” - So, Tritheism! Gotchya, Dr. Craig...

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

That would be to identify the persons as the divine substance, which is not Dr. Craig's view. - RF Admin

[@minetime6881]

Can William Lane Craig do a debate on evolution with Ken Ham or John Lennox?

[@BradBer]

That'd be amazing right? Until we get a chance for that, we can watch Hugh Ross embarrass Ken ham and Kent hovind if you haven't seen those.

[@minetime6881]

@@BradBer no I haven’t seen those thanks for telling me they existed. God Bless :D

[@BradBer]

@@minetime6881 and if you find the vids that ham or hovind released, they edit the really embarrassing stuff, so make sure you find the full episodes. John Ankerberg hosted a couple, and TBN did one with ham and Ross. I keep trying to post vid links but they arent allowed I guess.

[@minetime6881]

@@BradBer Thank you so much for telling this. I have only watched 10 minutes of this kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWG9q4iVjp2MepI and I already like Hugh Ross lol

[@BradBer]

@@minetime6881 Sentinel apologetics is a page with a lot of good stuff like this. And though Craig and Ross disagree on some things, I just love to hear it all from such brilliant Christian teachers!

[@ionutdinchitila1663]

Gregory seeks to answer the question of why the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three divine persons whoshare a common nature, are not three gods in the way that Peter, James, and John are three men. He begins by observing that, properly speaking, the divine nature cannot be named: “that nature is unnameable and unspeakable, and … every term invented by the custom of men, or handed down to us by the Scriptures, is indeed explanatory of our conceptions of the divine nature, but does not include the signification of that nature itself.”6 The term ‘god’, theos, is a case in point. Gregory derives it from thea, an act of beholding, and takes it to indicate the divine operation of overseeing or superintending the cosmos. Since that operation is shared equally by each of the three persons, each is equally God. No doubt it is true that we often refer to those who share in a common labor as many - as, for instance, many carpenters or shoemakers. The difference is that in such a case the joint action can be resolved into separate actions performed by each agent, whereas the action of the Trinity cannot similarly be resolved into three separate actions. As Gregory observes, “although we set forth three persons and three names, we do not consider that we have had bestowed upon us three lives, one from each person separately; but the same life is wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, and prepared by the Son, and depends on the will of the Father.” He concludes that “the name derived from operation cannot be divided among many where the result of their mutual operation is one.” Given that the three persons are one God, however, in what sense are they three? Gregory’s answer is deliberately brief and cryptic. “One is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause … one [the Son] is directly from the first Cause, and another [the Spirit] by that which is directly from the first Cause.” In other words, they are distinguished solely by their relations of origin.

[@ozairtahir9276]

Would you guys be willing to the Muslim Metaphysician on the topic of trinity and the coherence of craigs model. I can arrange it if so

[@sapientum8]

The kerberos dog "springboard" analogy was indeed a very unfortunate one. And unfortunately, it will come back again and again to bite Dr. Craig in the ass. I wish he had never unleashed that beast into the public.

[@rjp1007]

According to the Cappadocians, the three persons are not simply three persons, such as Peter, James and John, but rather Adam, Eve and Seth, i.e. consubstantial, but all deriving that shared substance from Adam, just as the Father is the beginning and source (principium et fons) of the Godhead, although of course that derivation is eternal (there was not a time when the Son (or Spirit) was not). The reference is Gregory of Nazianzen's Fifth Theological Oration. (In G of N's analogy Seth is "begotten" and Eve "proceeds") Augustine, although a Latin father, and approaching the concept of the Trinity in terms of shared substance and the concept of "relationes", nevertheless likewise spoke of the Son and Spirit being "given" their substance by the Father. A Biblical text in support of this is John 5:26, understood to be describing the Godhead in eternity, not merely the "economy of salvation". The reference in Augustine is Augustine, Fathers of the Church, vol. 79, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 11-27 (trans. John W. Rettig; Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1988): 19.13, 152

[@ionutdinchitila1663]

I'd rather listen to Saint John of Damascus here: Wherefore we do not speak of three Gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather of one God, the holy Trinity, the Son and Spirit being referred to one cause and not compounded or coalesced according to the synæresis of Sabellius. For, as we said, they are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other without any coalescence or commingling. Nor do the Son and the Spirit stand apart, nor are they sundered in essence according to the diæresis of Arias. For the Deity is undivided amongst things divided, to put it concisely: and it is just like three suns cleaving to each other without separation and giving out light mingled and conjoined into one. When, then, we turn our eyes to the Divinity, and the first cause and the sovereignty and the oneness and sameness, so to speak, of the movement and will of the Divinity, and the identity in essence and power and energy and lordship, what is seen by us is unity.

[@ionutdinchitila1663]

The Father is one Father, and without beginning, that is, without cause: for He is not derived from anything. The Son is one Son, but not without beginning, that is, not without cause: for He is derived from the Father. But if you eliminate the idea of a beginning from time, He is also without beginning: for the creator of times cannot be subject to time. The Holy Spirit is one Spirit, going forth from the Father, not in the manner of Sonship but of procession; so that neither has the Father lost His property of being unbegotten because He hath begotten, nor has the Son lost His property of being begotten because He was begotten of that which was unbegotten (for how could that be so?), nor does the Spirit change either into the Father or into the Son because He hath proceeded and is God. For a property is quite constant. For how could a property persist if it were variable, moveable, and could change into something else? For if the Father is the Son, He is not strictly the Father: for there is strictly one Father. And if the Son is the Father, He is not strictly the Son: for there is strictly one Son and one Holy Spirit.

[@lasttransmissions]

This interview is the perfect example why I do not believe in the trinity. Nobody can explain it, everyone tries to rationalize it in different ways.

[@spacenie]

Do you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each God?

[@spacenie]

Do you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each God? Do you believe in monotheism?

[@bruhmingo]

Why should you expect God to be perfectly comprehensible

[@Yesunimwokozi1]

Atleast Al gets the glimpse into the inafable

[@ionutdinchitila1663]

Let us present the Orthodox view, that there are 3 divine, co-eaual, co eternal persons, each of them being God, and they are God. Now, they will by necessity the same thing, so that there is One Will, One Power, One Nature, One Authority, One Energy, now, Saint Gregory of Nyssa tells us that "God" does not refer to the divine nature, nor does any name, because the divine nature is unspeakable, but all these names refer to what God does, or to some relation, like Lord, now, he takes "God" to come from the word "thea" which in Greek would be an act of beholding over the universe, now, as each person is supervising over the cosmos, each of them is God, and they are all God, because in God there is One Will and One Energy. So always when some name is given to God, it's not a name for the nature, but it's a name of some energy, that is, some act that He is doing. And that is why God is 3 and 1, He is not 3 and 1 in the same way, but is 3 according to persons, and One according to Essence, Energy, Will, Power, Authority, and so, as in the words of St. Maximus the Confessor: "God is both a monad and a triad". Saint John Damascene tells us an analogy, three sons united that give a single light, now, Protestants, who understand "God" as referring to the divine nature, would quickly accuse us of Polytheism, because we name 3 persons that have the same will, essence, energy, power, authority, but notice that the word "God" is referring to an Energy, and, as in God there is One Energy, there is One God, because there are not 3 Energies, but One, and "God, Lord" and all the other names are always referring to an Energy of God or to some relation of us to God. I should like to say to the reader that for further clarification, let him read our saintly Gregory of Nyssa: "On Not Three Gods", where He explains why there is One God.

[@minetime6881]

William Lane Craig is great and I Love all of his videos and I thank God for his books, but the only this I disagree with him on is his views on gay marriage. Why would God make people gay if he does not want them to “act on it?” Why can’t we just say that back when the bible was made basically all homosexuals got married into a heterosexual relationship and then got bored and cheated on their spouses with a person that was of the same gender so back then “homosexuals” basically was another form of adultery? (I am not gay btw i am just wondering)

[@gene3360]

Your question "Why would God make people gay if he does not want them to “act on it?”' seems to imply two things 1) that God put a 'gay' desire within some people, and 2) that God does NOT make them act on it or want them to. Therefore, if acting on the 'gay' desire is a choice, why wouldn't the 'gay' desire also be a choice? Just because people have desires, doesn't mean that God put them there.

[@DarthMakroth]

The social trinity is correct since Jesus prays to the father, Jesus became incarnate not the father. The persons are distinct. Group mind social Trinitarianism is partialism

[@claudiozanella256]

No, there aren't three divine Persons but just TWO, the gospels disclose only ONE relationship between the Father and the Son. Here the Father is WITHIN Jesus: “The words I say to you, I say not on my own but from the Father who DWELLS IN ME.”. But the Father IS A SPIRIT, because the Father is God and God is a spirit "God is a spirit". The Spirit within Jesus - to help Him - is thus the "FATHER who is a SPIRIT". Thus, Jesus is filled with the Holy Spirit and we saw that the Holy Spirit inside Him is the Father. This means: the Father = the Holy Spirit.

[@spacenie]

How do you interpret Jesus' baptism?

[@claudiozanella256]

@@spacenie Jesus has the Father who is a spirit and calls Him sometimes "Father", sometimes "Spirit" (Holy) according to circumstances, but He is always talking about the same Person. When Jesus was baptized the Holy Spirit - who is the Father - said "...you are my beloved Son...". Just TWO Persons there: Father and Son.

[@spacenie]

@@claudiozanella256 That is not true. For example, in Matthew's account of Jesus' baptism, all three Persons of the Trinity are named and distinct from each other- “As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” The three are also mentioned together, but as distinct Persons in the following Scriptures- Matthew 28:19- “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” 2 Corinthians 13:14- “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

[@claudiozanella256]

@@spacenie - Jesus being baptized: the HOLY SPIRIT - who is the Father in the form of a spirit - SAID "...you are my beloved Son...". That's all: JUST TWO God-Persons there: (1) Jesus and (2) the Father in the form of a spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit. - Baptize them IN THE NAME of the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Son. They are different names, not Persons. The Holy Spirit is the Father who is a spirit ("God is a spirit"). Thus, who is the "Father" there? I call Him the "Source of the Spirit", i.e. is God who is NOT a Spirit, who does not exist anymore "the world has not known you". The "Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit" COMES from that almighty God that "no one ever saw (God)". In other words God only existed BEFORE the world was born and is here now only in the limited form of a spirit, this means we just have A RELATIONSHIP with Him, but NOBODY is here, it's like having God on the phone. I made an example with St. Anthony here kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4KuoZKihrZlqrM . This is why Christianity is (should be) a monotheistic religion. As a matter of fact only Jesus (the only one complete God) and the power of God is here. "...ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand OF POWER, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (emphasis added)." The almighty God is here ONLY in the form of a spirit and controls that power. Jesus INHERITED the reign of God "has given all things into his hand" because He is the only "complete God" here. However, Jesus on the contrary has no power at all, He is like a normal man. Only a non-omnipotent Person can stay with us: Jesus. As concerns Paul - additional scriptures -better forget it. He is the same who states : "Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. {5:6} As he saith also in another [place,] Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. {5:7}" In other words- according to Paul - Jesus - who is God - is rewarded by appointing Him as a priest....

[@Xgy33]

Jesus is God the Gospel of John articulates it correctly

[@dcouric]

God is a tri-personal being; we are uni-personal beings. In our case, there’s a one-to-one correspondence between beings and persons; in his, there’s a unique one-to-three correspondence

[@gerryquinn5578]

LOL ! This was hysterical. I thought it was an episode of Monty Python. I was just waiting for the words : "And now for something completely different." We begin by looking at different models of the Trinity. Apparently, they can't agree on which one is best. They are all wanting. If ever there was a case for saying that the "sacred mystery" or incomprehensible Trinity was nothing more than philosophical mumbo jumbo, this was it. I searched my New Testament for examples of Jesus discussing substance/ essence/ personhood/ faculties etc and found NOTHING. By contrast, I found plenty of examples of Jesus praying to and worshiping the God of Isreal. His use of Father and Son is simple and as an illustration, it must be as old as man. I wonder what Jesus thinks about such philosophical debate. He would probably turn in his grave ( symbolicslly speaking, of course.)

[@philotheoapolobrendon3653]

The Bible teaches THAT God is a Trinity. The debate/discussion is on HOW HE is a Trinity. We have finite minds trying to understand infinite being. There are three separate but interrelated types of evidence: evidence for the unity of God: that God is one; evidence that there are three persons who are God; and, finally, indication or at least intimations of the three-in-oneness There is one, and only one, God (1 Timothy 2:5). The person of the Father is God (2 Peter 1:17). The person of the Son is God (Titus 2:13, John 1:1). The person of the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct and simultaneously distinguishable persons (Luke 3:22). Jesus was pointing out the he was Yahweh and the Jews understood Him perfectly. Notice in John 8:58-59: Jesus used same word as Ex 3:14 which is why they took up stones to throw at Him. They tried to stone Him because the claim of "I AM" was obvious to any first century Jew that He was claiming to be God which was blasphemy. Jesus calls Himself “the Alpha and Omega,” the title of Almighty God. Is 44:6 & Is. 48:12, Rev. 22:12-13 The Apostle Thomas called Jesus "God." John 20:27-29 The Apostle Peter called Jesus "God."2 Peter 1:1: The Apostle Paul called Jesus "God." Titus 2:12-14 The Apostle John called Jesus "God." John 1:1-3, 14 God the Father called Jesus "God." Hebrews 1:8 Isaiah the Prophet said the Messiah would be God. Isaiah 9:6 The Father has never been seen (John 1:18, 5:37, Jn. 6:46, 1 Tim.6:15-16) Ex 6:2-3 - God says He used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty. God appeared to Abraham when Abraham was 99 yrs old (Gen 17:1), Ex 24:9-11 and again in other texts. Moses wrote Exodus and Jesus confirms Moses was writing about the Son. John 5:46 - "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me." You could get stoned for blasphemy claiming you were God Who is the person who is not the Father who has been seen? The Son

[@gerryquinn5578]

@@philotheoapolobrendon3653 : I understand where you are coming from, I just think your arguments are entirely specious. You begin with the assumption that the Bible teaches a Trinity and then claim scriptural support . This is eisegesis. The 'Bible' is mostly a Jewish book and Moses and the prophets knew nothing of a Trinity. Most authorities and reference works acknowledge that the Jewish view of God is that of the Shema, a view restated by Jesus in the NT. The language of the Trinity is not that of scripture, but rather that of the Greek Neo-platonist Church Fathers who finally shaped the doctrine in its present form post Nicea. The fact that the doctrine in its current form proved victorious many centuries ago does not prove it was the original teaching of the Apostles. To project it back or read it into the text is an anachronism. You also seem to struggle with the biblical concept of God. The word has various shades and levels of meaning. To claim that Jesus was called God and this somehow proves he is the LORD God betrays a lack of understanding. Angels are called God/god in the Bible. Hebrew Kings are called God/god. Moses is called God. Judges are called Gods.(Even the Devil). But we clearly understand all these references to another being called God as an example of someone being called God in a representative sense or as God in a lesser sense, such as 'Mighty One.' Just one example of what I mean can be shown by your quoting Heb 1 :8. Clearly a 'God' who has a God cannot be God Almighty(v9). I am happy to further clarify my position and to take each of your scriptures one at a time and provide what is not only an alternative explanation, but a better one, at least according to myself. I'll leave it up to you.