tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post5921051808899622921..comments2024-03-21T03:04:18.673-04:00Comments on Unapologetica: Unitarianism, Samuel Clarke, and Assorted DetailsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-47338905644796218212017-04-19T10:54:10.591-04:002017-04-19T10:54:10.591-04:00So a denial of eternal sonship. A denial of eterna...So a denial of eternal sonship. A denial of eternal sonship would raise the question as to whether the Father could have been the Son and, if not, why not. I mention this here:<br /><br />http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2012/11/eternal-adoptionism.html<br /><br />Again, I think the passages which state that the Father sent the Son into the world mean just that (John 3:16-17, 10:36, 20:21, Romans 8:3, 1 John 4:9-14) - the relationship predates the sending.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-73689910838288382712017-04-19T09:04:59.679-04:002017-04-19T09:04:59.679-04:00Not adoptionism in the sense that Jesus never exis...Not adoptionism in the sense that Jesus never existed prior to conception but rather that he did not bear the title "Son" until then. Basically, just Trinitarianism which says the three persons are the Father, the Word and the Spirit and being begotten was something that happened when he entered time and was exalted in his new office as a man. Jesus is eternally pre-existent just as he is assumed to be in all other Trinity theories.Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-90530077629205517802017-04-18T18:23:25.534-04:002017-04-18T18:23:25.534-04:00"Would he be required to actively be loving s..."Would he be required to actively be loving someone who is a recipient of his love in order to be deemed "loving"?"<br /><br />No, I'm saying that any member of the Trinity would only love someone who is good or something that is good, i.e. is disposed to or intentionally acts to manifest divine glory.<br /><br />"Yes, but I was wondering...does he depend on the Spirit in any such a way?"<br /><br />He would, at least if a member of the "Trinity" as we're talking about it. Maybe it's not as explicit given the father-son analogy, but it would still be there.<br /><br />"We could say that. I was only trying to represent Clarke. I can see how the text could be taken either way depending on preconceptions."<br /><br />Ok. I'm sure you are aware that there are other lines of evidence for the Holy Spirit's distinctness and divinity, anyway.<br /><br />"I wonder about the fact that some Trinitarians (a minority view) believe that the Trinity was God, God the Word, and God the Spirit eternally and that God the Word was "begotten in time" (i.e. became "God the Son" when he came here in Mary's womb). They must see God as not being a Father until he decided to beget a Son and send his Word to become flesh. Could we show that Fatherhood is an inherent property of God?"<br /><br />You're talking about adoptionism? Off hand, in that case I think there are some arguments to be made about the Son having been "sent" as well as His having pre-existent glory. There are also OT theothropies that designate Jesus, if I'm not mistaken. I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, so can try to spell this out if you need, but you seem conversant in these issues.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-57148865275520375022017-04-18T15:20:06.105-04:002017-04-18T15:20:06.105-04:00"Or we could say His being merciful is no mor..."Or we could say His being merciful is no more required than His being creator, but His loving people or things or actions according to their respective goodness is."<br /><br />I'm not sure I understand. Would he be required to actively be loving someone who is a recipient of his love in order to be deemed "loving"?<br /><br />"Being the Father, just as Adam wouldn't have been a father without Cain or Abel or Seth."<br /><br />Yes, but I was wondering...does he depend on the Spirit in any such a way?<br /><br />'"In other words, you lied to men and the Holy Spirit and we are God's authority on the Earth therefore you have lied to God."<br />Then it should read: "you have not lied to men or the Holy Spirit but to God."'<br /><br />We could say that. I was only trying to represent Clarke. I can see how the text could be taken either way depending on preconceptions.<br /><br />I wonder about the fact that some Trinitarians (a minority view) believe that the Trinity was God, God the Word, and God the Spirit eternally and that God the Word was "begotten in time" (i.e. became "God the Son" when he came here in Mary's womb). They must see God as not being a Father until he decided to beget a Son and send his Word to become flesh. Could we show that Fatherhood is an inherent property of God?Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-32299940280059285402017-04-17T17:43:49.943-04:002017-04-17T17:43:49.943-04:00"We could apply this to His mercy and say tha..."We could apply this to His mercy and say that without creation He would have no way to display mercy without sinful creatures."<br /><br />Or we could say His being merciful is no more required than His being creator, but His loving people or things or actions according to their respective goodness is.<br /><br />"There are also other questions such as, does the Father depend on the Spirit or does the Son depend on the Spirit for anything?"<br /><br />Being the Father, just as Adam wouldn't have been a father without Cain or Abel or Seth.<br /><br />"Depending on the Son in order to be the Father is not like the Son eternally depending on the Father for His being."<br /><br />Naturally.<br /><br />"In other words, you lied to men and the Holy Spirit and we are God's authority on the Earth therefore you have lied to God."<br /><br />Then it should read: "you have not lied to men or the Holy Spirit but to God."<br /><br />"Essentially, Clarke and the Eastern Orthodox Church believe almost the exact same thing but then come to a different conclusion about the metaphysical implications behind it."<br /><br />Which appear to be pretty significant if you think the Son and Spirit can be annihilated or aren't necessarily existent.<br /><br />"Maybe I should just go talk about the gospel with my neighbors more."<br /><br />Certainly couldn't be a bad thing.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-72925553807145357952017-04-17T15:23:05.116-04:002017-04-17T15:23:05.116-04:00"The Father needs the Son to be the Father. F..."The Father needs the Son to be the Father. Fatherhood doesn't make sense apart from that relationship. So I would definitely say that the necessity of the Son and Spirit is something of which I am more sure than that the Father alone is autotheos. But I don't agree that this necessarily leads to the need for a Triune being."<br /><br />Well, I have a few reservations about the point that the Father "needs" the Son in order to be the Father. In the same way, people argue that a loving God needs someone to love and so if there were no Trinity God couldn't display His love and thus He "needs" to be a Triunity. I disagree with these arguments overall. We could apply this to His mercy and say that without creation He would have no way to display mercy without sinful creatures. Then we could say God is not only dependent on the creation but dependent on their evil and sin! I think that's a bad road and I don't really like where the logical consistency leads. There are also other questions such as, does the Father depend on the Spirit or does the Son depend on the Spirit for anything? If not, then why are there 3 instead of the 2 interdependent persons? I think at the very least we should admit that IF the view of "The Monarchy of the Father" is correct (and I think it is) that the level of dependence is not the same. Depending on the Son in order to be the Father is not like the Son eternally depending on the Father for His being. Then again, I think one could argue that the Father could be the Father with only the eternal knowledge and plan for His Son inside Himself which He would bring about at a later time (if I were say, Arian, I would probably argue that). I'm not sure how convincing it would be, though.<br /><br />As to Acts 5:3-4 I think Clarke goes over this verse. Basically saying that the verses aren't calling the Holy Spirit "God" by title or name but simply saying that to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God, just as to lie to Peter was to lie to God and yet no one assumed Peter to be a 4th person in the being of God. Hence, Peter says, "You have not lied to *men* but to God." In other words, you lied to men and the Holy Spirit and we are God's authority on the Earth therefore you have lied to God. This is a minor point but I wanted you to know Clarke does address it.<br /><br />I think the Trinity can be explained via the Monarchy of the Father position the best. However, the difficult part is the implications of the position. Essentially, Clarke and the Eastern Orthodox Church believe almost the exact same thing but then come to a different conclusion about the metaphysical implications behind it. Clarke says the Father, Son and Spirit must be 3 beings with only the Father actually being "God" while the Eastern Orthodox contend that aseity is not an essential attribute of God but only a property of the Father.<br /><br />This is how I spend my days...mulling this over. Maybe I should just go talk about the gospel with my neighbors more. Thanks for your thoughts, Ryan. Take care.Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-83758618815650372302017-04-16T21:09:57.397-04:002017-04-16T21:09:57.397-04:00The Father needs the Son to be the Father. Fatherh...The Father needs the Son to be the Father. Fatherhood doesn't make sense apart from that relationship. So I would definitely say that the necessity of the Son and Spirit is something of which I am more sure than that the Father alone is autotheos. But I don't agree that this necessarily leads to the need for a Triune being.<br /><br />"When pressed, the Trinitarian states that 1-3 share the same nature (as James White says, "The Trinity is 3 whos and 1 what.") The problem with this is that God is not a nature. Nowhere is God revealed as a nature or a class of being in scripture and I see it as contrary to sound reason as well. God is always presented as a person."<br /><br />John 1:1 - the Word was God. Does this not mean the Word was divine? Surely He's not the Father or Spirit or a Triune being, and the verse isn't just saying "the Son was the Son."<br /><br />"Likewise, God is never used to denote the group of 2 or 3. As Samuel Clarke noted, "The word 'God' in scripture refers to the Father singly (99% of the time), or the Son singly (1% of the time). It is never used of the Spirit.""<br /><br />Acts 5:3-4.<br /><br />"Even when Trinitarians talk about God they say, " *He* is 3 in 1." So by "He" they mean "God" in this statement. But when asked, "How can He be 3 in 1," they reply, "Because there is a shared substance/nature/essence between the Father, Son, and Spirit." So they are switching between God being a nature or class of being and God being a person. This is how the eternal dance goes in the conversation."<br /><br />I agree, this is why I have held to the monarchy of the Father version of Trinitarianism. <br /><br />"What, therefore, prevents the Trinity from being 3 distinct beings?"<br /><br />Again, I have pointed out the same things elsewhere on this blog. Search the "Trinity" tag for more. <br /><br />But at the same time, we're the same person even though we change over time, which is hard to explain. If strict identity isn't necessary for unity of being, then can an analogy apply to the Trinity? That's one reason I'm reevaluating my position.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-58829949234361814532017-04-14T21:46:16.346-04:002017-04-14T21:46:16.346-04:00Hi Ryan,
You asked about my view of the Father, ...Hi Ryan, <br /><br />You asked about my view of the Father, Son, and Spirit. <br /><br />Well, I am always weighing and considering things pertaining to this topic. I have a very deep concern with Trinitarianism because I think most people are quite inconsistent in it. After reading Clarke's book I found some weaknesses in his view BUT he seems to be much more logically and philosophically consistent. He is also able to quote the earlier bishops and presbyters in support of his view a lot. (Note that I have always been Trinitarian and attended a Trinitarian church but I'm investigating right now as thoroughly as I can. But I do kind of lean towards his view at the moment). It is a Unitarian view.<br /><br />The problem I continually see with Trinitarianism is this: I see the word "God" interhcangeably used for 5 different things. <br /><br />1. The Father<br /><br />2. The Son<br /><br />3. The Spirit<br /><br />4. All 3 of them together (the group as one)<br /><br />5. The shared "nature" between them (essence, substance, etc.)<br /><br />When pressed, the Trinitarian states that 1-3 share the same nature (as James White says, "The Trinity is 3 whos and 1 what.") The problem with this is that God is not a nature. Nowhere is God revealed as a nature or a class of being in scripture and I see it as contrary to sound reason as well. God is always presented as a person. <br /><br />Likewise, God is never used to denote the group of 2 or 3. As Samuel Clarke noted, "The word 'God' in scripture refers to the Father singly (99% of the time), or the Son singly (1% of the time). It is never used of the Spirit."<br /><br />Even when Trinitarians talk about God they say, " *He* is 3 in 1." So by "He" they mean "God" in this statement. But when asked, "How can He be 3 in 1," they reply, "Because there is a shared substance/nature/essence between the Father, Son, and Spirit." So they are switching between God being a nature or class of being and God being a person. This is how the eternal dance goes in the conversation. <br /><br />Now to the differences between personal properties and nature which traditional Trinitarians assert are the differences between the persons of the Triune God. They say the properties make each person unique, but don't make any one of them greater or lesser than the other, if I'm not mistaken. Let's look at this from our standpoint as humans. You share in humanity with me 100%. But you don't share my personal properties to be "Aaron." Therefore, you can share in my nature 100% (human nature) but you can never be Aaron. I am my own person and you are a separate person. Trinitarians state that since the Father, Son and Spirit all share the nature equally that there is 1 God. However, you and I share in humanity equally but we aren't the same being. We are 2 beings. What, therefore, prevents the Trinity from being 3 distinct beings?Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-83529165006644575802017-04-14T14:45:02.133-04:002017-04-14T14:45:02.133-04:00Sorry, it appears that there was some ambiguity.
...Sorry, it appears that there was some ambiguity.<br /><br />"Given that "they" refer to the Son and Spirit, this naturally appears to suggest you think "God" = "Father" here, not how you defined it... unless you think the Father alone is "the almighty one who must exist in order for anything else to exist."<br /><br />Ok, so I'll try to iron this out a little. What I meant here was that IF the Son and Spirit are necessary in order for anything else to exist then they must be identified as "God" because God is the only thing necessary in order for anything else to exist. However, if they are necessary BUT aren't actually God then that would mean that whoever were "God" (let's say, the Father) would be in need and so would fail to actually be God. <br /><br />In short, either they are necessary as they are persons of the Triune God or they are unnecessary but exist by the Father's will. However, it seems a contradiction that they be necessary and yet not persons in the identity of the one Triune God. <br /><br />None of this is meant at the present time to reflect my views but just to think this out. I hope it makes sense? I'm pressed for time I'd love to share my views later. I think generally they are perhaps very close to yours maybe with a few nuances. I definitely agree that only the Father is autotheos so we have this in common. However, I know people debate whether autotheos is an attribute of God or a property of the Father so it can be tricky.Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-43955299130780616152017-04-13T16:56:30.535-04:002017-04-13T16:56:30.535-04:00I asked because "God" can mean different...I asked because "God" can mean different things, and my comment to which you were replying could have led me to believe you intended to use the word strictly in reference to the Father - and maybe you do. For example, you said:<br /><br />"Because if it be necessary that they exist, then this would mean that God has need of them..."<br /><br />Given that "they" refer to the Son and Spirit, this naturally appears to suggest you think "God" = "Father" here, not how you defined it... unless you think the Father alone is "the almighty one who must exist in order for anything else to exist."<br /><br />Further, I was curious as to whether you were intending "God" as meaning to refer to a person or being/attributes. You say "him," so it sounds like a person, and so maybe you think "God" = "Father" after all, but I know these matters can be more complicated than first glance.<br /><br />"So, if they exist necessarily, then they are God (or 3 gods)."<br /><br />Please note I was only summarizing Clarke's arguments. I don't agree with 1)-3). So when you say:<br /><br />"My reasoning for points 1 and 3 would be that the Son and Spirit, if they are not God, cannot be necessary to exist."<br /><br />I would disagree insofar as you seem to think "God" = "Father." The Father can't be the Father without the Son (or Spirit), so yes, there is mutual dependence in a way - unless you think "Fatherhood" is an accidental property of the "almighty" one you say you mean when you are talking about "God"? <br /><br />What are your views? Specifically, are the Son and Spirit consubstantial with the Father?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-70121439590015991282017-04-13T01:23:06.409-04:002017-04-13T01:23:06.409-04:00One more thing about Clarke's view I wanted to...One more thing about Clarke's view I wanted to add: He was essentially asked whether the Son and Spirit were necessary on his death bed when someone asked him if the Father could annihilate the Son and Spirit or not. His response: "I never thought of that question." <br /><br />So for all his deep thought on the subject, it would seem he didn't know. I read his book and it seems that his answer would have to be, "Yes, the Father could do that, however he never would." Especially given that Clarke saw the eternal generation of the Son and Spirit to be completely voluntary acts of the Father and the divinity of the Son and Spirit as donated to them wholly by the Father.Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-39895174458805498752017-04-13T01:03:44.509-04:002017-04-13T01:03:44.509-04:00I agree it is definitely necessary to define terms...I agree it is definitely necessary to define terms when confusion can arise. However, I was not aware there was any ambiguity here.<br /><br />Defining who "God" is could be very long if we go into immutability, impassibility, omniscience, etc. I'm not sure at what point we would cross from "defining" God (does one "define God" anymore than we "define Ryan"?) to simply describing him or listing attributes and properties. For the relevance of my post I would say God is the almighty one who must exist in order for anything else to exist.<br /><br />Yes, I use the word "God" the same way throughout my initial post. As in, at the very least, the almighty one who must exist in order for anything else to exist.Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-71232188614495260782017-04-11T17:10:55.642-04:002017-04-11T17:10:55.642-04:00It's important to define terms: "if they ...It's important to define terms: "if they are not God, cannot be necessary to exist." Define "God," and is that use of "God" how you use the term consistently throughout your reply? Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-22241326786031945732017-04-11T00:37:33.850-04:002017-04-11T00:37:33.850-04:00"1) if the Father, Son, and Spirit each neces..."1) if the Father, Son, and Spirit each necessarily exist, then there are three Gods; 2) if the Son and Spirit are derived, then the Son and Spirit cannot be consubstantial or of the same essence or nature as the Father, as, for example, the Father’s power is supreme; 3) the Son and Spirit cannot exist necessarily yet be subordinate to the Father.<br /><br />In reply, we may note that 1) and 3) both beg the question: why? No supporting arguments are provided, and I can think of none"<br /><br />My reasoning for points 1 and 3 would be that the Son and Spirit, if they are not God, cannot be necessary to exist. Because if it be necessary that they exist, then this would mean that God has need of them and is no longer capable in and of himself to do all things without someone else and this would defeat his omnipotence and needlessness. So, if they exist necessarily, then they are God (or 3 gods). But if they don't exist necessarily then one may say that they exist because of God's good will and pleasure but not due to any necessity.Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-63396713479949779802012-12-18T05:39:02.220-05:002012-12-18T05:39:02.220-05:00Here is my reply to your arguments about necessity...Here is my reply to your arguments about necessity and creation and communication: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=2544&action=edit&message=6&postpost=v2Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-73617868617182660382012-12-08T01:57:24.104-05:002012-12-08T01:57:24.104-05:00Ryan,
Good post.
"But I don't think t...Ryan, <br /><br />Good post. <br /><br />"But I don't think the Father's attributes depend on the Son or Spirit even though he necessarily causes both of them.”<br /><br />>>>I would agree but say that the Father's ****properties**** logically depend on the Son's existence. Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-34829693666821906952012-12-08T00:38:23.938-05:002012-12-08T00:38:23.938-05:00Mark,
"I think we may say things are necess...Mark, <br /><br />"I think we may say things are necessary as God willed it such, this does not imply these things are other higher principles or courses that God must adhere to, there things are so because God has willed it." <br /><br />I would say it is the other way around: the Father has willed things which are necessary. Notice I am not introducing an external constraint: as I say in the post, "who the Father is determines everything He wills." So I don't think I introduce another cause separate from the Father. <br /><br />I believe that last time Drake and I discussed this issue, he made a similar point, saying that if it were necessary for the Father to create, then the Father would depend on creation. But I don't think the Father's attributes depend on the Son or Spirit even though he necessarily causes both of them. I suppose your objection is somewhat different in that you consistently reject that anything apart from the Father is caused necessarily, but then you have to deal with the issue of arbitrarity.<br /><br />"So, eternal generation is necessary since the Father has so willed it, but to say eternal generation is necessary because itself is necessary and God is obliged to some other thing outside of his will, I cannot fully understand how that will be possible."<br /><br />Is that which the Father wills necessarily good? I assume you would agree. But is that a problem? No. It's only a problem is the "other thing outside his will" is furthermore outside the Father. I'm not saying that.<br /><br />"In the end, I think we are holding to the same point but saying it differently, namely, the Father is the ultimate principle of all things, and he is the one that by whom are all things, and he is in the proper sense the One God of the Bible."<br /><br />Yes, we can agree about that regardless of whether the will is determined. But the issue itself matters.<br /><br />As for Athanasius, I have not read all of his works, but I don't recall coming across any point at which he clearly affirms numeric unity.<br /><br />Thanks for the reply.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-80022803737996024852012-12-07T23:55:48.823-05:002012-12-07T23:55:48.823-05:00Hi Ryan,
This is a wonderful summary, thanks for ...Hi Ryan,<br /><br />This is a wonderful summary, thanks for putting these matters in this post so that many more others may think upon it.<br /><br />I have been thinking about this matter for quite some time now, I am not equipped very well with a sharp mind and developed philosophical terms like you do, so please correct me if I used the wrong term.<br /><br />This is my humble take on this, I think we may say things are necessary as God willed it such, this does not imply these things are other higher principles or courses that God must adhere to, there things are so because God has willed it. So it is still God's will which is the ultimate principle, so I agree with you in this sense, that the generation even creation of the world are necessary.<br /><br />I think for Clarke, he wanted to emphasize that there is only one ultimate principle, that is God himself, if necessary be understood as another cause, then we will truly have multiple Gods, which is logically impossible. <br /><br />So, eternal generation is necessary since the Father has so willed it, but to say eternal generation is necessary because itself is necessary and God is obliged to some other thing outside of his will, I cannot fully understand how that will be possible.<br /><br />Anyway, it is my humble take on it, but I still prefer to be more rested in the revelation of the Bible, in which I agree very well with Dr. Clarke that in what exact metaphysical manner the Son was generated, the Bible nowhere declared, so noone can assume to be able to figure that out. <br /><br />In the end, I think we are holding to the same point but saying it differently, namely, the Father is the ultimate principle of all things, and he is the one that by whom are all things, and he is in the proper sense the One God of the Bible. <br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />Mark<br /><br />P.S. I still think, (welcome any correction), that Athanasius taught the Son is not autotheos, but he also taught numerical unity.徐马可https://www.blogger.com/profile/09841500062485778894noreply@blogger.com