 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/23/2005 5:58 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all,
I've been doing some thinking of late on the doctrine Trinity, which to a first approximation may be summed up in the following two propositions:
(1) There is only one God (one instantiation of the divine nature).
(2) There are three mutually distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) each fully and equally divine.
Now, while (1) and (2) are not obviously contradictory, it's also not obvious that they aren't contradictory. To make clear the coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity we need a model that shows how (1) and (2) are compossible. The problem is that nearly every model that has been proposed (e.g., the egg, the triple-point of water, the nuclear family model, etc.) distorts the doctrine in one way or another.
I want to propose a different sort of model, one that takes "Perfect Love" as its starting point (1 John 4:7). First, what is perfect love? I suggest the following definition:
Perfect Love =def. A cognitive, affective, and volitional state of desiring and actively pursuing the true good of its object grounded in an understanding that it is the true good of it's object.
So understood, perfect love is a 3-term relation (X knows, desires, and pursues the true good Y of object Z), not merely a 2-term relation (X loves Y). Moreover, it is a relation with a threefold nature:
(a) Affective: Perfect love desires the good of its object.
(b) Volitional: Perfect love pursues the good of its object.
(c) Cognitive: Perfect love knows the good of its object.
What constraints does the nature of perfect love place on the X,Y, and Z terms of the relation?
Well, for starters, it seems clear that X must be a person, for the possibility of having affective, volitional and cognitive states is definitive of personhood.
What about Z? Well, the fullest expression of perfect love would consist is love of the highest or best type of object. And it seems that persons are categorically better sorts of things than, say, inanimate objects, mere animals, plants, mathematical abstractions, or what have you. Aristotle, for example, argues that persons as such do not essentially lack any of the capacities of inanimate objects, mere animals, or plants, whereas all of those types of things do essentially lack at least some of the capacities of persons (like cognition). Abstractions can be understood by persons, but they cannot understand persons in turn. Finally, some persons are better than others. So the highest example of perfect love would be perfect love for a perfect person, that is, for a perfectly loving person.
So the highest example of perfect love would seem to be the love of a person by a person. But what about Y? What is in the highest sense the true good of a person? Well, I would propose that the highest good for any person Z is itself another person Y that perfectly loves Z. Think about it, what is the single best thing in life? Isn't it the loving personal relationships we have with others, where love in understood in the fullest sense to have affective, volitional, and cognitive dimensions? And what would be the single worst thing that could even happen to a person? Wouldn't it be to be completely isolated, completely ignored by others? At any rate, that seems plausible to me.
So what I propose is that if God is, by nature, Perfect Love, then God must be tri-personal, for the highest possible kind of perfect love is the giving by a perfectly loving person of a perfectly loving person to a perfectly loving person.
Hence, the one divine nature (Perfect Love) is necessarily tri-personal.
Finally, the other divine perfections flow from God's nature as Perfect Lover. A Perfect Lover perfectly desires and wills the true good of its object (omnibenevolence). A Perfect Lover is able to perfectly pursue the true good of the object (omnipotence). And a Perfect Lover perfectly knows the true good of its object (omniscience).
Anyway, them's my thoughts. Constructive feedback appreciated.
Have a Merry Christmas, everyone, and may you all come into a fuller relationship with the God of perfect love in the coming new year.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/23/2005 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Awww, isn't he great???? Oh, I mean... isn't what he wrote great? 
Anyway, I haven't really read this in depth (I'm such a procrastinator when it comes to Christmas stuff...I'll admit), but I see how this works really well when applied to the God-World relationship, but I still need to get my mind wrapped around (haha, Christmas pun) the application of this within the God-Godself relationship. I'll keep thinking as I finish Christmas stuff. (I probably won't finish until about 12:01AM Dec. 26th. D'Oh!)
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/23/2005 9:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Many theories. Augustine had several.
Two things in the background come to mind. The notion that we only know God as we personally are able. And the notion that we know what God reveals.
In that light, I feel comfortable with Gregory Naz. image of "when" he gazes on the one he sees the three, and when he contemplates the three he is aware of the one. (My verbs, used only for variety and not to make a specific point.) That image holds us well for me. Knowing of the one makes recognizing the work of the three possible. And knowing the work of the three reveals the one. That's what I get out of it -- and I wonder that is what Saint Gregory was thinking of.
Back to "personally able" and "revelation" that image fits.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
What I'm _not_ attracted to is the contemporary "social trinity" notion. Some try to include John Zizioulas in it; but putting his work in a book with social trinitarians does not change what's in "Being as Communion." And perichoresis/coinherence is not social-trinitarian; it comes from the revelation of the monarchy of the Father.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Nice to see your ideas working, Alan.
East and West need each other. Check out Kallistos Ware, who's a nice bridge, meaning he has a footing in both.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/23/2005 8:28:39 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/24/2005 3:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan,
Very good. Question:
You said, So what I propose is that if God is, by nature, Perfect Love, then God must be tri-personal, for the highest possible kind of perfect love is the giving by a perfectly loving person of a perfectly loving person to a perfectly loving person.
Hence, the one divine nature (Perfect Love) is necessarily tri-personal.
How do you deduce tri-personality from ". . . the giving by a perfectly loving person, of a perfectly loving person [still one person] to a perfectly loving person [now two persons]? It seems as if the action is tri-fold, but the subjects are bi-fold.
Thanks,
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/25/2005 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | |
Tom: To get the necessity of a third, I can see the logic of arguing that perfect love between two persons would want to create out of their love a third.
Jeff: But I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that perfect love has some unsuppressable urge to express itself to other beings?
Tom: Not other ‘beings’, no.
Jeff: If so, wouldn't this imply that God must create continuously throughout infinite time?
Tom: Not if the first creation is perfect. There’s nothing new introduced by a fourth, fifth, etc. The third completes the circle.
Jeff: Or are you saying that Person One would want to create a third person for Person Two, as a gift to Person Two?
Tom: More like One and Two would together create a third as a gift to each other. But still, that fails to appreciate the priority of the Father.
I dunno.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/25/2005 8:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan:
A cognitive, affective, and volitional state of desiring and actively pursuing the true good of its object grounded in an understanding that it is the true good of it's object.
I feel like there is a problem with this definition. Being as I tried to make my own description, let me try to show it.
Is it possible for a person to actualize all 3 characteristics of your description of perfect love from fundamentally UNloving reasons?
Think codependency.
Think moralism.
I'd call your definition an excellent one for PERFECT BENEFICENCE or PERFECT BENEVOLENCE..but not perfect love.
Just because a person DESIRES the good for another does not necessarily mean that said person ascribes any type of inherent worth to that other in their internal framework. It is possible to do seemingly altruistic acts for completely self-centered reasons that don't have anything to do with VALUING the person. Moreover, it is possible to to seemingly good acts without fundamentally attempting to SHARE ONESELF with that other. In other words, the way I see it, a person could embody a, b, and c...yet (depending on the definition of "the good" NEVER essentially IDENTIFIES with another being. In my view, genuine love is not POSSIBLE without some form of identification and intimacy with the other.
Now you could argue that part of "the good" would be for the person displaying perfect love to positively value the person in an altruistic fashion...and to share some aspect of oneself with the other (this makes way for incarnational SACRIFICIAL GIVING of the self) If you did want to argue that, I'd say that straight out.
Just my thoughts.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 12/26/2005 3:24 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Just because a person DESIRES the good for another does not necessarily mean that said person ascribes any type of inherent worth to that other in their internal framework. It is possible to do seemingly altruistic acts for completely self-centered reasons that don't have anything to do with VALUING the person. Moreover, it is possible to to seemingly good acts without fundamentally attempting to SHARE ONESELF with that other.
Can two people profusely share altruism love without being fueled by Triune Love?
Love is like a ball in a game of catch: throw it and it will come back to you; hold onto it and that ends the game. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 12/26/2005 2:29:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/26/2005 3:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Meph, good thoughts (I still need to think all this stuff through to get it straight in my head. Maybe this will be a good mental exercise for me...mentally running off some of these extra pounds I gained this weekend)...
Alan and I were talking about this earlier & Alan said he read your post, but we're both wondering what you perceive the difference being between perfect benevolence/beneficence and perfect love?
(Personally, I always thought of benevolence basically meaning "good" and love is something that comes from good (an extension thereof?), i.e. perfect goodness begets perfect love, as well as perfect justice, perfect righteousness, etc.... but that's just my thought about it.)
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/26/2005 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Spark,
Nothing's in the oven yet... we're still praying though. If there's still nothing in the next couple of months, we may adopt, which will be just as much of a blessing.
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 12/26/2005 3:36 PM (GMT -6) | |
Violin for God said...Hey Spark, Nothing's in the oven yet... we're still praying though. If there's still nothing in the next couple of months, we may adopt, which will be just as much of a blessing.
My younger sister had one child and then tried (the whole 9 yards) for like 12 years to have a second. Finally, they ended up adopting a little baby girl. A year later my sister was pregnant.  So now they have a two year old little girl and a new 3 month old baby boy.
My wife and I never had that problem, all she had to do was wink at me and boom she was pregnant.  All children are a miraculous gift.
Blessings,
Mark
Love is like a ball in a game of catch: throw it and it will come back to you; hold onto it and that ends the game. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 12/26/2005 3:49:14 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/26/2005 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, all, for your comments. Just a brief comment on an objection raised by both Starkman and Tom.
As Tom put it: said...
I don't see why X's love for Z must entail the gift of a person (Y) other than X. So I can see why perfect love involves 2 necessarily. To get the necessity of a third, I can see the logic of arguing that perfect love between two persons would want to create out of their love a third. But that doesn't seem to be what you're saying.
Let me see if I can restate the objection more precisely.
I proposed that perfect love was a 3-term relation between a lover (X), a beloved (Z), and the true good of Z (Y). What I think Starkman and Tom are saying is that the distinction between X and Y may be merely conceptual and not real or metaphysical. Thus, why can't X himself be the true good of Z, in which case X=Y, and the phrases "lover of Z" and "the true good of Z" are conceptually distinct ways of picking out the same referent (like the "Evening Star" and the "Morning Star", both of which refer to Venus)?
Well, I think that's a very good question, and I'm not quite sure at this point how best to address it. At the very least, thinking about God as Perfect Love gives us a plausible way of arguing that there must be at least 2 persons in the Godhead, which would constitute an argument against monopersonal versions of theism (like Islam). Secondly, if there can be 2 persons in the Godhead, then why not more? Why not a Trinity? So the model I'm proposing does seem to go at least part of the way toward defending the conceptual coherence of the Trinity, even if it doesn't fully articulate or establish the doctrine.
So the question that remains is this: How do we get, as Tom puts it, "the necessity of a third"? Is there a way in terms of my model to argue that, for perfect love, X and Y must be really and not just conceptually distinct? Or is there some other way of arguing the point? Tom suggests that we might be able to argue that "perfect love between two persons would want to create out of their love a third", but how would that argument go, precisely? And even if the two persons are both fully divine, why would the third have to be fully divine as well?
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/26/2005 10:54 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Alan might find this quote worthwhile:
This is the key to personhood according to the Trinitarian image. Not isolated self-awareness, but relationship in mutual love. In the words of the great Romanian theologian Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, "In so far as I am not loved, I am unintelligible to myself."
If, then, we think of the divine image, we should not only think of the vertical dimension of our being the image of God; we should also think of the Trinitarian implication, which means that the image has a horizontal dimension—relationship with my fellow humans. Perhaps the best definition of the human animal is "a creature capable of mutual love after the image of God the Holy Trinity." So here is the essence of our personhood: co-inherence; dwelling in others.
What is said by Christ in His prayer to the Father at the Last Supper is surely very significant for our understanding of personhood: "That they all may be one, as you, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us" (John 17:21). Exactly. The mutual love of the three Divine Persons is seen as the model for our human personhood. This is vital for our salvation. We are here on earth to reproduce within time the love that passes in eternity between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
http://www.conciliarpress.com/again/content/view/72/9/9/
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/27/2005 4:35:24 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/27/2005 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | I guess the question now is, what metaphysically drives the necessity of a triune God? We can deduce the need for two persons, but what's driving the necessity of a third. Does it logically stand that God would have to be (at least) triune? Could God have been God as only...biune (no, "biune" is DEFINITELY not a word, is it!)?
One thing that comes to mind is disemination or ominipresence. Perfect love could be found in the existence of Father and Son, but for this to be everywhere, it would require a third person.
Hmmm!
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/27/2005 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
...what metaphysically drives the necessity of a triune God? ...
What does that even mean?
Is it "indicating through metaphysical ideas probable existence of..." OR "necessity drivingmetaphysical reality and manufacturing the..."?
Which? And why do you come to God asking that sort of thing?
Pardon?
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/27/2005 5:09 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW,
I thought the question was pretty straight-foward (and self explanatory) as to its content: what, if anything, drives the necessity of a tri-une God? That is, does God, by necessity, have to be triune. We've already established the fact that love requires two persons. God, however, is triune.
NOTE: it is necessary that God has always existed as triune, but that's not the issue. Does the existence of God require that it be this way. I suppose one could say, "yes, since this is the existence God has always had." My question, then, is what I asked initially: what drives God metaphysically to be, by necessity, triune?
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/27/2005 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
My question, then, is what I asked initially: what drives God metaphysically to be, by necessity, triune? Are you positing something beyond God, that God is "driven" by. Sounds that way. (I'd deny that.)
Are you positing that God has a metaphysic that makes God act by necessity? (I'd deny that too.)
Clarity is not so easy. I'm having a hard time with what you are saying. Can you be more simple?
Thanks,
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/27/2005 5:34 PM (GMT -6) | | |
HERE'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, ALAN:
When the Cappadocian Fathers in the fourth century are describing God, one of their key words is koinonia, meaning fellowship, communion, or relationship. As St. Basil says in his work on the Holy Spirit, "The union of the Godhead lies in the koinonia, the interrelationship, of the Persons." So this then is what the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is saying: God is shared love, not self-love. God is openness, exchange, solidarity, self-giving.
http://www.conciliarpress.com/again/content/view/72/9/9/
AND:
God is not a closed unit. God is not a unit, but a union. God is love in the sense of shared love, the mutual love of three Persons in one.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/27/2005 7:30:59 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/27/2005 8:29 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
PoW,
If love only requires two persons, why is God three persons?
Starkman
I don't know. One is the sorce of the other two, and one is begotten, and one proceeds. All are without begenning, yet have their source in the first.
But I've read that the "three" is not so finite as our number three. The "tree" is a number to suggest unboundedness, rather than defined boundedness. This expression does not circumscribe God, but points to the unboundedness of God.
Like the Ware quotes shares, God's love is participated in, and the fellowship of the trinity is "coinherence" and sharing -- openness -- rather than possessing and shrinking.
But as to "why" the answer is only to point to the Father, who's will is common to the Son/Word and the Spirit.
Like the Creed says, "I believe in One God, the Father almighty... God is three because the Father, the source of all wills it.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
God is not a closed unit. God is not a unit, but a union. God is love in the sense of shared love, the mutual love of three Persons in one.
- God is not a unit, of three "persons" as we define "separate persons." God is a "union" of three hypostasis.
- God "shares" love. Not "separate persons" giving and losing love between themselves in a "social trinity" of "suffering love."
- The Trinity is mutuality. And we too are called to join in that "mutuality" through participation in the divine love IN CHRIST as members of Christ.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/27/2005 7:37:05 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 53 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:30 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 |
|
|