 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Derrick-TX
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 10/20/2004 8:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hello all - first time post.
I have been a member of the UPC for the last 20 years or so, and have been a staunch believer in the oneness view.
Recently, a friend gave me a copy of God of the Possible - which I thought was outstanding. It has proven to be a pivotal stepping stone in my ongoing relationship with God. Thanks Greg ;)
Moving forward, I began reading Greg's other books, and found them very helpful and informative. I read with great interest the book about the oneness movement, and began questioning my oneness roots. I have spent months researching both sides of the argument, and truthfully, I am having trouble settling on either viewpoint. There are anomalies on each side that I find troubling, and proponents of each are so sure that they are correct, that it is ultimately a frustrating exercise for me.
My question (finally) is whether any/all of you struggle with wrapping your brain around the trinitarian concept, yet have just accepted aspects of it as a mystery. Or, have you really been able to find a mental picture that works for you. I am specifically asking for trinitarian guidance here, as I figure I can find oneness information elsewhere. ;)
The biggest sticking point for me on the trinity is the notion that the three persons of God have independent wills. In Greg's book, I was good with the idea that each of the three persons is separate, yet each is also fully God -- this makes sense to me in the context that "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." And maybe its my modalist upbringing, but I can rationalize the three persons if I new they were single-minded (which I guess would make them more like manifestations). But the idea that there is an inter-communication of free-willed entities implies to be that all power and all fullness does not reside in any one entity -- that each entity is not fully God. Thoughts? Related to this question: in heaven, does a trinitarian expect so see 3 entities, or only Jesus?
In case anyone is interested in answering, here are some ideas that won't get far with me.
1. Oneness is heresy -- trinity has solid roots and history to back it up. My view on that is that a lot of people thinking something for a long time does not make it so. I know that many of you think its heresy, and that's ok. ;)
2. Oneness people are narrow-minded. I agree with this more often than not, but that is another issue...
Anyway, that's a start. I think this is a great board, and I look forward to hearing what some of you think.
-Derrick
*** OVERSIMPLIFICATION breeds FANATICISM *** | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2004 1:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Derrick-TX
The biggest sticking point for me on the trinity is the notion that the three persons of God have independent wills. In Greg's book, I was good with the idea that each of the three persons is separate, yet each is also fully God -- this makes sense to me in the context that "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." And maybe its my modalist upbringing, but I can rationalize the three persons if I new they were single-minded (which I guess would make them more like manifestations). But the idea that there is an inter-communication of free-willed entities implies to be that all power and all fullness does not reside in any one entity -- that each entity is not fully God. Thoughts? Related to this question: in heaven, does a trinitarian expect so see 3 entities, or only Jesus?
-Derrick
E-MAIL ME, DERRICK.
On this board they appear to hold to a "Social Trinitarian" view. Some contemporary theolgians say they find that in Gregory of Nyssa. But Gregory doesn't say that.
Most of my reading has been Orthodox.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/21/2004 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Derrick-
I don't think you're a heretic. I'm a trinitarian, and probably a social trinitarian too. You're free to talk with POW offline all you want, though his directing you to do so BECAUSE there are social trinitarians is suspicious, even offensive. Sorry POW, just being honest.
I know Greg is pretty busy these days, but I hope he'll find time to drop in and comment.
Welcome to the board, Derrick. God bless.
I don't know how comfortable you are reading higher-end philosophical stuff, but Greg's thesis is available for purchasing through amazon (for $60! Ouch!) and you might find that helpful.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Derrick-TX
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 10/21/2004 11:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks both of you for your follow-up. I have sent an email to you, POW, but I guess I WOULD like to keep most discussions here on the board for the purpose of getting some diverse viewpoints.
Let me also clarify that I have not spent months in deep study of the trinity -- thus my lack of knowledge on the social trinitarian view. ;) I guess the better way to say it, is that I have been contemplating these issues for months (or years), and have started reading works from both sides in recent weeks.
Recently, I left the UPC church that I was attending, and am now helping a friend start a church. He has been a big encouragement by suggesting that I seek out these answers. He is the one that got me interested in Greg's books, and specifically open theism. He also has a oneness background, and still teaches oneness, but the church is not officially UPC.
I have a great respect for many of the people involved in the oneness organizations. But I have also never been one to accept things as fact just because someone tells me so. I think its important to get balanced input from many sources. One thing that I am also trying to be careful to do is to balance intellectual study with actual experience. Plus, I am praying for understanding and guidance in these areas.
There is some additional background, for what its worth. I hope that some others of you will weigh in on the questions in my initial post.
Thanks,
Derrick
*** OVERSIMPLIFICATION breeds FANATICISM *** | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2004 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
to talk with POW offline all you want, though his directing you to do so BECAUSE there are social trinitarians is suspicious, even offensive. Sorry POW, just being honest.
Tom, don't be so offended.
Derrick, I suggested e-mailing me BECAUSE I probably won't discuss much AND since lots of what you might get here differs from what I can contribute, a clearer, quicker means is in a not-three-way conversation.
So, Tom, its NOT "because" there are...
Derrick, I'm not interested in convincing you. I only feel that since I'm capable of providing reference to what lead up to Nicea and followed, and that you might be interested, that I'd offer.
I think that understanding what Athanasius, Basil, and the Gregories were saying -- rather than what people used them to be saying later in other contexts and purposes -- is both interesting and vital. And what I was reading this summer addressed just that!
Offer made.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2004 12:22 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/21/2004 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2004 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Derrick and Tom,
(1) A name that sometimes pops up in such a discussion is John Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon. (Yes, the same place that John mentions in Revelations, but as it is Turkish occupied, Zizioulas teaches at Oxford and Berlin--I think) (2) And a term that often comes up is "perichoresis." But historically that would not be used to mean "interpenectration." But in modern theology (alla Moltman) is would. If I encounter the term perichoresis I use the other English translation (Who' knows if I'm listerally correct in how I'm understanding it -- but I do read it used as a translation.) of "co-inherence." Co-inherrence, at least to my ears, does not paint a picture of exact level equality between F. S. & H.S. as "interpenetration" does, at least to my own senses.
Biblically, that particular sort of equality is, I'm convinced, to be avoided. There are many scripture verses.
I'll let you sort a bit of this out, to see whether it interests you. Here's "one from each side" so to speak:
- MODERN USE
http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/view/366
Obviously any analogy between human sociality and divine sociality will break down at some point, but perhaps a social trinitarian would respond to your comment, Andrew, by challenging your sentence that contains "we are naturally in relation to other individuals ..." and "internal relationality between three 'persons'..." By discussing "individuals" at the human level versus "persons" at the divine level, the force of the analogy, for whatever it's worth, is lost. The human person (NOT individual) relates to other human persons in a similar manner that the divine person relates to the other divine persons (Perichoresis or interpenetration or mutual indwelling). This is a challenge to the very notion of a human "individual" with its atomistic associations. Miroslav Volf discusses this beautifully in After Our Likeness and Exclusion and Embrace, in which he develops a notion of human personality which is characterized by openness to being inhabited by the personalities of others. This challenges any notion of internal versus external relationality. I suppose some biblical warrant for the analogy would be "I pray that they may be one as we are one."
- TRADITIONAL
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9811/reviews/dulles.html
This review would not be the place to undertake a full critique of Moltmann’s trinitarian theology as taken up by Volf. But I may indicate some misgivings. I would be inclined to question whether Scripture gives any hint of the "retroactive" influence of the Son and the Spirit on the Father. I find it hard to see how the "social" model, as here developed, escapes the pitfall of tritheism. The theory seems difficult to reconcile with the homoousion of Nicea and the teaching of several other councils. Although the term perichoresis has a legitimate theological usage, it does not warrant the conclusions Volf draws from it.
We must remember that the Son is not a Father, and the Father does not proceed!
But, it is correct to affirm that the Son is "of one essence" with the Father, and the Spirit also.
The relationship of the Father and the Son is, in one sense, in one direction. While we also are taught in scripture "believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. (ASV)", and might understand that to indicate that the Father's image is in the Son. (I think that's how I take it.)
I'm moving and thinking too slowly...
Suffice it to say that When John Zizoulas wrote "Being as Communion" twenty-five years ago his understanding of perichoresis was traditional. I don't know whether that has changed or not. I have seen his name used a lot by those wishing to elist its support for a Social Trinitarian possition. And surely some of the multi-author books he has been in included others who see perichoresis to be 'interpenetration.' But pages 91 and 45 of that book say otherwise. As do all the footnotes addressing perichoresis.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2004 1:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Peace POW.
TGB
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/21/2004 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Derrick, (And welcome to the forum!)
Though my heritage is fourth-generation classical (trinitarian) Pentecostal (Assemblies of God & Church of God), when I was single, I had the pleasure of having two different roommates who were both from a UPC/Oneness background. Boy did we ever have some interesting discussions. Also, for a time I fellowshipped a lot with an independent (charismatic) Oneness church. I consider that particular pastor a very good friend.
Having said all that, from my experience it seems that the Oneness view has just as much of a mystery to explain about the passages that depict God's "threeness." Especially, I'm thinking of the passages such as Jesus' baptism in the Jordan, in which the Father and the Spirit both testify to the Son's divine status--at the same time.
As to your question about each of the triune persons having separate wills, I think we can probably agree that Scripture plainly reveals that both the will of the Son and the will of the Spirit was submitted to the will of the Father (even in the Garden of Gethsemane--I don't find the idea that Jesus almost aborted his mission to earth at this point tenable--more on that perhaps later). Jesus said, "I only do the things I see the Father do," "I say only what I hear the Father say," "I always do the things that please Him," and (as I'm sure you know), "I and my Father are one."
This oneness between the Father and the Son is, in the trinitarian concept, a unity of purpose, will, and character, not a complete identification of personhood, or else it would seem that Jesus was just talking to himself whenever He prayed. By way of analogy, a husband and wife can be "one" without being identical in person. In fact, in John 17 Jesus prays specifically that those who would believe "might be one, even as you and I, Father, are one", and yet it is quite clear that all Christians are not identical in person, but rather in purpose and in will (and hopefully, in character). The unity that we as believers have is expressly said to be "the unity of the Spirit." Therefore, when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one," the trinitarian does not see this as revealing identical personhood, but rather identical CHARACTER, purpose, and will.
To my mind, the trinitarian doctrine makes the most sense logically and makes the most sense of Scripture, though admittedly it can be taken too far, to the point of tritheism by some. That said, I completely realize that the word "trinity" is not found in Scripture, and for that reason I can't consider a disagreement over it something that merits exclusion from fellowship.
One thing I have to say about Oneness folks I've known is that they certainly have a great zeal for God. I no doubt qualify as a "no standards" type person in the eyes of most Oneness believers, but that's okay with me, really. 
I'm not sure if my post answered any particular question of yours, but for what it's worth...
Again, welcome to the forum.
Regards,
John Earp
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Derrick-TX
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 10/22/2004 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks POW for those links and quotes -- some pretty heady stuff that I am going to have to review in detail.
JEE: Glad to hear that you have had good experiences with some oneness people in the past.
I do agree that there are certainly assumptions made and liberties taken when the biblical reference to God's threeness as explained by oneness defenders. But, I also see assumptions made from the trinitarian perspective. Truthfully, I LIKE the oneness interpretation better, but that is obviously no reason to believe it.
I guess I still get hung up on the "fullness of the Godhead bodily issue", and the "if you have seen Me, you have seen The Father" -- I guess I understand how that can be interpreted as being "if you have seen me, you have seen the common essense or common purpose that I have with the father. It is just not intuitive to me.
Trinitarians often site Jesus's prayer in the garden as an indicator that he is praying for guidance from The Father. The oneness answer to this is that his fleshly side is battling internally with his perfect spiritual side. Well, some trinitarians say, that is implying that Jesus is nothing more than the fleshly man - that he is not a diety in anyway. But, if you follow the "manifestion" model, then the Father is the Spirit, the Son is the Spirit wrapped in a fleshly vessel, and the Holy Spirit is a manifestion of the Spirit in our hearts and lives.
If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 persons all of like mind and purpose, then the Spirit of Jesus, being of like-mind with the Father, would have no reason to pray to the Father because they have a common goal and purpose. So, could it be his weak flesh praying to the Spirit -- whether you call it his spritual self or whether you call it The Father?
More on this later, but thanks again for the comments, and I would probably say that I count as a "no standards" type person as well these days
-Derrick
*** OVERSIMPLIFICATION breeds FANATICISM *** | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/24/2004 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's what I'm doing: scanning some short pieces from Zizioulas' Being as Communion. I want to locate a few short quotes that ILLUSTRATE various views. I also have a book by Behr that offers such short quotes.
STT | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/25/2004 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | I would like to recommend this: http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Behr/Articles/2001-06-svtq-behr.pdf
And any number or useful things to read in it:
quote:
(St Gregory of Nazianzus)
When the Lord taught us the doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he did not make arithmetic a part of this gift! He did not say, “In the first, the second and the third” or “In one, two and three.” … There is one God and Father, one only-begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit. We declare each of the hypostases uniquely (monacw`~ ejxaggevllomen), and if we must use numbers, we will not let an ignorant arithmetic lead us astray into polytheism.6
(Vladimir Lossky) In speaking of three hypostases, we are already making an im-proper abstraction: if we wanted to generalize and make a concept of the “divine hypostasis,” we would have to say that the only common definition possible would be the impossibility of any common definition of the three hypostases.7
And
quote:
The Canon and Tradition of the Gospel According to Scripture
Christian theology quite simply is not based upon the supposed two axes of Trinity and Incarnation, and some of the problems which arise when it is treated as if it does have been indicated. Rather, theological reflection, beginning with the original apostles and continuing with all those who follow in their tradition, develops as a response to the marvellous work of God in Jesus Christ, the crucified and exalted Lord. More specifically, and significantly, it develops by reflecting through the medium of Scripture—the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets: Christ died according to Scripture and he rose according to Scripture, as Paul puts it (1 Cor 15:3–4), in a phrase which reappears in practically every later creed. That Christian theology is a response to the Passion of the Savior, and re-flects on the work of God through this prism, reveals not only the unity of all theology in the paschal faith, but also allows us to see the unity of the theological endeavor in both the work of the apostles and that of the fathers, and also the unity of aspects of the Christian faith, and even the supposed schools of Christian theology, often held apart.
THIS LAST ONE SPEAKS TO US. | | Back to Top | | |
|
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 10/28/2004 11:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Derrick!
One of my best friends grew up with a UPC mom and brother. He isn't UPC..wonder why?
What I always ask about with anyone of faith, especially if they are of different stream than I...Who do you worship? Who saves you? Is Jesus God? Where willl you spend eternity? Is the Holy Spirit a person? Can you become saved and then lose your salvation? If these are all answered in an "orthodox" way, I begin to believe we are brothers in Christ. I guess I'd add the style of baptism(s) to this list next.
I am trinitarian and claim not to know the shallows even of this mystery. I get it about as expicitly as I do the virgin birth and the incarnation. I believe the bible teaches these and God spoke to me almost 30 years back...these things are true.
I do believe the Spirit, Son, and Father are distinct. Yet each one is love. Love would never disagree as to what Truth is, the Right Way is, or what is Best. So I believe they never have even a hint of disagreement. I also add to my bible beliefs, my experience. John Wesley endorsed experience as part of the way we confirm God's teaching. I can truly say I have experienced each member of the trinity. I like the Nicene creed where it says each member is worthy to be worshipped and I think it says adored. Some seem to say the HOLY Spirit doesn't want worship or to be addressed in prayer. I say he does. I don't believe a year spent entirely trying to "get" the Trinity would be worth it. I do say we should go with what we know and be patient for God to teach us as we need it.
I liked a book by Taylor, I think, called "The Myth of Certainty". He says there are things we can't be certain of and it is damaging to act as though we can. The apostle's creed to me is absolute. the meanings of all the terms and mysteries are not expicit and in stone.
Welcome to the board and have patience with us all. We need it.
Barry | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|