Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Ugh, Drake. Come on. You are assuming OBW's definition of "being" is the same as yours. This is sematics. Please do not go there, it just wrecks a conversation like this. Define your terms and make sure the other party agrees with your definitions before hurling accusations.
Same advice to OBW.
|
The fun thing about all of this is that it is about placing terms not used and therefore not clearly relevant into a definition never given. To argue the concept of "being" as somehow not relevant to a "person" is (to me) to clearly be using a definition of either being or person that does not jive. When a theologian says that "person" should not be understood as we understand the word "person," then why not a different term? I believe that the bound in Trinigy on the side of three is that they not be three gods, but only One God. If you don't like how I say that, then you have a problem with what the scripture reveals.
It does not reveal that the Father died on the cross with the Son. So there is such complete separation in person as to make the distinction of "but no separate beings" virtually ridiculous. We may fear that the term "three beings" is dangerously close to a heresy. But only if in doing so we turn the unity of essence in an agreement of equal independents rather than a bond that unifies beyond what could be among truly independents. In other words, they are separate, yet not simply independent. They are truly one, but not in person.
If you want to declare that this thing that makes them effectively dependent, or a unit also defines the being, they you are using the term differently than I am. But if in using it as applying to the unity and not the persons you cause the persons to merge beyond the evidence (that they never simply were, or became each other) then you are misusing the term as egregiously as you think I have. Actually much more so. I am using it for the purpose of establishing the true separation what is described in the scriptural accounts without separating them into three gods. But in conjunction with such teachings as "Christ became the Holy Spirit" it would appear that you are using "being" as a means to support the mocking of the true separation and merging them into a singular in which the alleged separation is of no real purpose other than the accomplishment of some brief purpose in which a certain aspect or "person" is propped-up to act.
You fight against a claim of modalism from the more extreme opponents, but then espouse a view of the trinity in which the three are not denied, but are essentially of no consequence. It is just the amorphous singular that means anything. I actually have limited problem with chosing to understand that was as a personal matter. But to make it is significant doctrine of your group and decry those who do not agree as some kind of heretic is just too much. It clearly shows the lack of any true oneness or unity with regards t the family of faith.