Comments on: On the Trinity http://www.aglassdimly.com/2007/11/22/on-the-trinity/ Dim Reflections On God Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:28:36 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Perry Robinson http://www.aglassdimly.com/2007/11/22/on-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Perry Robinson Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:04:41 +0000 http://www.aglassdimly.com/?p=39#comment-77 There are lots of very good monographs on the Nicene period, most are through Oxford univeristy press. On persons specifically is a little scholarly monograph Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons, by Turcescu. Khalid Anatolios bk on Athanasius: The Coherence of his Thought, is very good. Both works have plenty of bibliography to keep you busy. There are lots of very good monographs on the Nicene period, most are through Oxford univeristy press. On persons specifically is a little scholarly monograph Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons, by Turcescu. Khalid Anatolios bk on Athanasius: The Coherence of his Thought, is very good. Both works have plenty of bibliography to keep you busy.

]]> By: Tim http://www.aglassdimly.com/2007/11/22/on-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-76 Tim Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:47:47 +0000 http://www.aglassdimly.com/?p=39#comment-76 Something like "the Trinity is three separate 'persons'", taken by itself, would indeed be fertile grounds for that kind of mistaken notion that we're saying the same thing. But let's be careful; simply using the word "distinct" instead of "separate" isn't enough to fix the problem. It's a good correction, but I doubt it's enough to get the job done in terms of communicating to someone caught up in non-Trinitarianism. I would guess that someone like Steve would get hung up on that point regardless of which term we use--unless we're careful also to emphasize the unity (in more than "purpose") revealed in Scripture, understood since the time of the apostles, and clearly articulated at Nicaea. That's what I was trying to do in this post. However short of my goal I may have fallen, I don't think an LDS could read the following and come away thinking we're saying the same thing: "The Bible is clear that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct. But Bible is also clear about their unity–that the Father is God, that the Son is God, that the Spirit is God, that they are all distinct, and that there is only one God." Incidentally, if you have any recommendations for additional resources discussing the Nicene category of "persons", it would be welcome. For what I'm trying to do in this post, something relatively accessible to the layman would be good, if you happen to know of something that would fit the bill. Something like “the Trinity is three separate ‘persons’”, taken by itself, would indeed be fertile grounds for that kind of mistaken notion that we’re saying the same thing. But let’s be careful; simply using the word “distinct” instead of “separate” isn’t enough to fix the problem. It’s a good correction, but I doubt it’s enough to get the job done in terms of communicating to someone caught up in non-Trinitarianism.

I would guess that someone like Steve would get hung up on that point regardless of which term we use–unless we’re careful also to emphasize the unity (in more than “purpose”) revealed in Scripture, understood since the time of the apostles, and clearly articulated at Nicaea. That’s what I was trying to do in this post. However short of my goal I may have fallen, I don’t think an LDS could read the following and come away thinking we’re saying the same thing:

“The Bible is clear that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct. But Bible is also clear about their unity–that the Father is God, that the Son is God, that the Spirit is God, that they are all distinct, and that there is only one God.”

Incidentally, if you have any recommendations for additional resources discussing the Nicene category of “persons”, it would be welcome. For what I’m trying to do in this post, something relatively accessible to the layman would be good, if you happen to know of something that would fit the bill.

]]> By: Perry Robinson http://www.aglassdimly.com/2007/11/22/on-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Perry Robinson Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:52:24 +0000 http://www.aglassdimly.com/?p=39#comment-75 Tim, Apart from being mistaken, the LDS get hung up on the term separate and think that you are saying the same thing as they are. Notice "A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?" http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ Tim,

Apart from being mistaken, the LDS get hung up on the term separate and think that you are saying the same thing as they are. Notice

“A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?” http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/

]]> By: Tim http://www.aglassdimly.com/2007/11/22/on-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-74 Tim Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:00:47 +0000 http://www.aglassdimly.com/?p=39#comment-74 Ack, good catch. Thanks, Perry. I've added a correction. Ack, good catch. Thanks, Perry. I’ve added a correction.

]]> By: Perry Robinson http://www.aglassdimly.com/2007/11/22/on-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-73 Perry Robinson Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:45:39 +0000 http://www.aglassdimly.com/?p=39#comment-73 Just FYI, the persons are not separate, but distinct. Separation would imply three gods. ;) Just FYI, the persons are not separate, but distinct. Separation would imply three gods. ;)

]]>