If it is the case that God is composed of three distinct but equal persons, that would mean that God "equals"allthat makes each of the persons distinct from each other, the sum total of the persons. None of the persons in this model have the distinctions of the other persons. If they did, they would not be distinct. Since God would be all that makes each of the persons distinct butnoneof the persons shares this capacity or characteristic of God, then none of the persons could claim to be God.Each could claim to be an "aspect" of God but that would be different from being God.If God equals three distinct persons but each of the persons does not equal three distinct persons, then none of the persons could be God.
(Argument from Hal Flemings in "The Difficulties With The Trinity - From The Philosophical Side")
Some trinitarians usually try to get around this by claiming that the term 'God' as used of any member of the Godhead is a mass noun not a count noun.This 'argument' can be seen for the fudge that it is though when we take into account that the definite article is used in reference to 'God' when speaking of the father on countless occasions in the holy scriptures.John1:1,John8:54.certainly at 1corinthians8:6 no one can reasonably suggest that'God' in this passage is not a count noun.At John1:18 the definite article is used of 'god' this time with regard to Jesus.He is called 'the only begotten god'.Clearly then he is not merely a distinct person from Jehovah but a distinct god.In fact according to this passage he is a unique god.
I am posting a post about this soon on my blog (Bibleselfharmony.blogspot.coom) and here is what it is:
What Does “God” Mean? – Some Thoughts
“Each trinitarian person is as great as the Trinity, if reference be had to the essence, but not if reference be had to the persons. Each person has the entire essence, and the Trinity has the entire essence. But each person has the essence with only one personal characteristic; while the Trinity has the essence with all three personal characteristics. No trinitarian person is as comprehensive as the triune Godhead, because he does not possess the two personal characteristics belonging to the other two persons. The Father is God, but he is not God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.” – A footnote made in the copy of On the Trinity that I am using
When describing all three persons of the Trinity, Augustine says that they are “very God” or “truly God.” But the problem that I have is that (as Augustine says) the True God is the Trinity (if he be a Trinity then the Only True God’s being is the Trinity). So the term “God” logically should not apply to any given person, for, while equal to Trinity as a whole, each person is not the Trinity; and, while they claim that each person has the whole essence, it ought to be observed that the essence is not the whole Trinity (for there are three personal attributed and three minds) and therefore is not the whole of God. So it follows that each person is not the whole of God. And since “God” (obviously) means the whole being (Trinity or no Trinity), no person can be “God,” but only “part” – for lack of a better word - of God, therefore, to refer to each as God would be improper as it would indicate that they are the whole Trinity. Of course we could dive in to the argument that reason and rationality should not be used as guides when discussing this and the Trinity should be accepted as it is, unknowable. This, Augustine argues, ought to be done because you cannot compare that which is not corporeal to that which is, and our mind is not a good enough basis for such inquiries and comprehension. However such an argument stems for reason, so I fail to see why it can be reasoned that the Trinity is incomprehensible if reason is insufficient to understand God. (See the self-refuting absolute statement: You cannot know anything. It implies that you can know that you don’t know anything, yet that itself is a known thing, impossible under its own long. Or: This sentence is false.) Further this argument (tries to) gives an out to any reasonable objection, such as a common claim that Trinitarians abuse the term “God” in order to make their theory “work.” When pressed for an explanation of how “God” can mean something other than God they will say that it is mysterious, yet is true because the scriptures allow it. However this explanation stems from the preconceived notion that the Trinity is true. However, even then it is hard to see how the scriptures would use God in such a way, for in the OT the scriptures do not, and their the Trinity is not even hinted (some say that it is, but there is reason to doubt that, even if it is true) and uses God in reference to Jehovah, who they say is the whole Trinity. (I cleared the house, well I mean I cleared my room, but since it share the same attributes as the other rooms it counts as the whole house – right?)
However, if I have reasoned thusly because of misinformation, I would like a Trinitarian to respond (either to better my argument or to see the truth) on how God can mean that which is not God.
Some trinitarians usually try to get around this by claiming that the term 'God' as used of any member of the Godhead is a mass noun not a count noun.This 'argument' can be seen for the fudge that it is though when we take into account that the definite article is used in reference to 'God' when speaking of the father on countless occasions in the holy scriptures.John1:1,John8:54.certainly at 1corinthians8:6 no one can reasonably suggest that'God' in this passage is not a count noun.At John1:18 the definite article is used of 'god' this time with regard to Jesus.He is called 'the only begotten god'.Clearly then he is not merely a distinct person from Jehovah but a distinct god.In fact according to this passage he is a unique god.
ReplyDeleteI am posting a post about this soon on my blog (Bibleselfharmony.blogspot.coom) and here is what it is:
ReplyDeleteWhat Does “God” Mean? – Some Thoughts
“Each trinitarian person is as great as the Trinity, if reference be had to the essence, but not if reference be had to the persons. Each person has the entire essence, and the Trinity has the entire essence. But each person has the essence with only one personal characteristic; while the Trinity has the essence with all three personal characteristics. No trinitarian person is as comprehensive as the triune Godhead, because he does not possess the two personal characteristics belonging to the other two persons. The Father is God, but he is not God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.” – A footnote made in the copy of On the Trinity that I am using
When describing all three persons of the Trinity, Augustine says that they are “very God” or “truly God.” But the problem that I have is that (as Augustine says) the True God is the Trinity (if he be a Trinity then the Only True God’s being is the Trinity). So the term “God” logically should not apply to any given person, for, while equal to Trinity as a whole, each person is not the Trinity; and, while they claim that each person has the whole essence, it ought to be observed that the essence is not the whole Trinity (for there are three personal attributed and three minds) and therefore is not the whole of God. So it follows that each person is not the whole of God. And since “God” (obviously) means the whole being (Trinity or no Trinity), no person can be “God,” but only “part” – for lack of a better word - of God, therefore, to refer to each as God would be improper as it would indicate that they are the whole Trinity.
Of course we could dive in to the argument that reason and rationality should not be used as guides when discussing this and the Trinity should be accepted as it is, unknowable. This, Augustine argues, ought to be done because you cannot compare that which is not corporeal to that which is, and our mind is not a good enough basis for such inquiries and comprehension. However such an argument stems for reason, so I fail to see why it can be reasoned that the Trinity is incomprehensible if reason is insufficient to understand God. (See the self-refuting absolute statement: You cannot know anything. It implies that you can know that you don’t know anything, yet that itself is a known thing, impossible under its own long. Or: This sentence is false.)
Further this argument (tries to) gives an out to any reasonable objection, such as a common claim that Trinitarians abuse the term “God” in order to make their theory “work.” When pressed for an explanation of how “God” can mean something other than God they will say that it is mysterious, yet is true because the scriptures allow it. However this explanation stems from the preconceived notion that the Trinity is true. However, even then it is hard to see how the scriptures would use God in such a way, for in the OT the scriptures do not, and their the Trinity is not even hinted (some say that it is, but there is reason to doubt that, even if it is true) and uses God in reference to Jehovah, who they say is the whole Trinity. (I cleared the house, well I mean I cleared my room, but since it share the same attributes as the other rooms it counts as the whole house – right?)
However, if I have reasoned thusly because of misinformation, I would like a Trinitarian to respond (either to better my argument or to see the truth) on how God can mean that which is not God.