Please, point out to me where I have tried to explain God in “mere human terms.” I have discussed the problems of modalism and pointed out the distinction between the Persons of the Triune God. I have also pointed out that God is spirit, not matter. Where are the “mere human terms” (outside of the New Testament references) that I am allegedly using to explain God?
No kidding. But you can’t separate materials from their nature. They are inextricably linked together.
Really? You can’t see or feel materials used to design a bridge? What kind of bridges do you build? We build material ones, not imaginary ones.
But you can test for them and their properties can be known. There are testing laboratories to do just that as well as well-defined manufacturing processes that allow for production of reliable and consistent building materials. One you know these properties, you can reliably design with them.
But we do have revelation that provides information. Jesus, especially in the Gospel of John, identifies how He works with both the Father and the Spirit.
Which has been one of my points all along.
If you think that’s what I have been trying to do, you haven’t understood much of what I have written… unless you are mistaking what I wrote about the differences between the Persons of the Triune God:
The Father is not the Son nor Spirit.
The Son is not the Father nor Spirit
The Spirit is not the Father nor Son
You need to know that this is not just my opinion or formulation, but it is based in the New Testament and has been an essential part of Christian orthodoxy for more than a millennia. Now, I only presented the part that points out the error of modalism (which the video seems to espouse - along with some strange ideas about God having to be more than spirit to be superior to angels), but the Father, the Son and the Spirit are all God.
No. The video maker’s frame of reference is different than my frame of reference. I am not trying to explain the nature of the Triune God at its essence. I am explaining what we can know of the Triune God as revealed in the scripture. I am also critiquing the modalism (which is actually an anti-Trinitarian viewpoint that the video seems to uphold) and the strange theology that seems to think that God must be more than spirit (even though the Bible explicitly describes God as spirit) in order to outclass the angels.
The problem comes in when they promote modalism and weird, speculative theology that is unsupported or refuted by scripture.
You seem to think I don’t understand what was said in the video. I get it. That’s what bothers me.
So, you didn’t comment on my analysis of the part of the video you quoted. Here it is again:
Do you think this is sound theology?
If so, can you give me biblical support that God and the angels would be on the same level if God were not more than spirit “since that is all the angels are?” And why must God be more than spirit to create the angels?
It has occurred to me that you may not be familiar with modalism. Here's a a quick summary.
Here is a more detailed explanation.
Here is an overview of the doctrine of the Trinity. Please note the graphic that helps explain the orthodox New Testament view.
A Unique and interesting explanation of the Trinity
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by quantumfaith, Oct 13, 2013.
Page 2 of 6
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Baptist Believer said: ↑Do you think this is sound theology?Click to expand...
Baptist Believer said: ↑It has occurred to me that you may not be familiar with modalism.Click to expand... -
Baptist Believer said: ↑Well mathematics at its core is based on representing material things symbolically - for instance, how many apples I have in my lunch bag. I can do addition and come out with a reliable result. One of the engineers I work with can make a series of complicated calculations based on the nature of certain materials and structures and design a bridge that will allow people and automobiles up to a certain size safely cross a river.
Sure. As a computer programmer, I worked with multidimensional matrices and vectors and can go beyond what can seemingly naturally occur in our material world. However, all of that is based on the concept of a material world and is rooted in observable realities. Mathematics finds its core, objective reality in the properties of the material world. We can certainly move beyond it, but everything is tied back to matter.
So... how does one use mathematics to define and describe the spiritual?Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics
Aside: No I do not attempt to trivialize God or any of his properties by attempts to "mathematize" Him. As far as I am concerned, He, could in fact divide by 0, without obtaining the infamous "blue screen" of windows death. -
For those that do not like the video, maybe it is beyond your ability to imagine. Lets face it, seminary is not rocket science.
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporterthisnumbersdisconnected said: ↑That is nothing less than an insult. The reality is, I don't believe you understand modalism. If you did, you could not possible see that video as promoting it.Click to expand...
I decided to watch the video again and take some notes to explain why I believe the line of reasoning falls apart and the conclusions point to three main errors:
1.) God must be more than spirit because He would not be greater than the angels if He was not.
2.) That God must be more than three spatial dimensions (which assumes that God is material) because He is everywhere at once.
3.) That God appears as three Persons "for our sake" - not because He is eternally three and one (which is modalism).
Here is a quick summary of the claims of the video:
(The video claims)
(Major Premise)
God is incomprehensible.Click to expand...
The video claims:
[allegation]A Unitarian once told me that God was just a spirit.
[rationale for response to the Unitarian]Well, if God is just a spirit, He would be no greater than the angels, since that is all the angels are. Lucifer may have had a chance in the war in heaven, if God was just a unitarian spirit, because God would be on the same level as Lucifer.
[conclusion]But God created the angels, so He must be more than just a spirit. Emphasis added]Click to expand...
God is greater than the angels based on His character, His essence, His nature, and because He is the One Who has created and sustains all things.
The video asks:
“So How Can We Learn Who God Is?”
Answer Given:
By studying His attributes.Click to expand...
We can learn Who God is by looking at Jesus – He has explained Him (John 1:18)
We can look at the attributes of God, but we shouldn’t try to pit them against each other or try to assume too much based on the Greek philosophical categories without going back to scripture.
Premise:
If God is Omniscient, then He must see everything.Click to expand...
If He can see everything, He must be everywhere at once, which would make God Omnipresent.Click to expand...
If God is omnipresent, then He would have to be greater than three dimensions – He must be comprised of more than three spatial dimensions.Click to expand...
The video then goes into hyper-dimension discussion.
Then the video asks:
What does being hyper-dimensional have to do with the Trinity?
The video uses the illustration of a cube and the inability for a two-dimensional creature to understand a three-dimensional object.
Then the narrator confidently states: “This is exactly the same way God explains Himself to us.”
The video then states the line of reasoning:
God is:
Omnipresent
Meaning He is:
Hyper Dimensional
Meaning He is:
Beyond Three Dimensions
And
Beyond Human Understanding
Then the video states:
He is beyond our spatial understandings.{/quote]
Again, the term spatial is used which indicates that God is conceived of being material.
(The video then makes the extraordinary claim:)
“God is explaining His form to us in hyper dimensional terms, where the physics allow beings to be more than one person.”Click to expand...
(The video goes into the discussion of the Trinity…)
This Brings Up Another Question
“Why is God Only Three Persons…?”
He is revealed in Three Persons for our sake…
First, He is the Father.
He is also revealed as the Holy Spirit
Last, God is manifested as Jesus Christ.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supportersaturneptune said: ↑For those that do not like the video, maybe it is beyond your ability to imagine. Lets face it, seminary is not rocket science.Click to expand...
I don't know what to make of your statement about seminary. -
Baptist Believer said: ↑This is bizarre and unbiblical logic.
God is greater than the angels based on His character, His essence, His nature, and because He is the One Who has created and sustains all things.Click to expand...
Baptist Believer said: ↑We can learn Who God is by looking at Jesus – He has explained Him (John 1:18)Click to expand...
Baptist Believer said: ↑We can look at the attributes of God, but we shouldn’t try to pit them against each other or try to assume too much based on the Greek philosophical categories without going back to scripture.Click to expand...
Baptist Believer said: ↑Omniscience does not necessarily involve “seeing” everything, but I won’t argument the point too much.
God does not necessarily have to be everywhere at once to “see everything,” but then again I won’t argue the point too much.Click to expand...
Baptist Believer said: ↑Here’s where everything goes completely off the rails. The makers of the video are referring to God in “spatial” terms – that is, material terms.Click to expand...
Baptist Believer said: ↑Even if we go with the idea that God can see everything because he is omnipresent, that only requires God to be more than three dimensions if you already assume that God is material. And the argument has already been primed to believe that God is “more than spirit” because of the alleged requirement that God would have to be that way to be superior to the angels. Since that position is unbiblical, it does not support this unwarranted conclusion either.Click to expand...
We have been honest enough -- and so has the video -- to state that up front. Our explanations do not use spatial references such as the known three dimensions to explain God. Yours does. Simply by this:
Baptist Believer said: ↑Even if we go with the idea that God can see everything because he is omnipresent, that only requires God to be more than three dimensions if you already assume that God is material.Click to expand... -
Baptist Believer said: ↑I can imagine it just fine. I just don't think it is accurate or helpful. In fact, I think it is worse than unhelpful, I think it presents three major errors as I have listed.
I don't know what to make of your statement about seminary.Click to expand...
All Three are One, and work in perfect harmony. It is obvious that God is in another higher dimension because of his attributes. The only reason the person in the video went down a dimension from ours is that is all we can possibly understand. Once he established how hard it would be for a two dimensional person to communicate or describe a three dimensional person, it is not too hard to realize how futile it is to describe our Creator in a higher or infinite type of dimension. It was only an illustration to fit our minds. I would really like to see you do better. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporterthisnumbersdisconnected said: ↑You're amazing. How do you miss the fact that the very reasoning you have applied here is the exact reason He is more than the spirit-being type that the angels are, beings that He created??Click to expand...
I do not back down from that even if you can’t conceive of it or disagree. Your lack of understanding of that point is your issue, not mine.
Do you understand the meaning behind John's writing? The word "explained" is the Greek exegeomai. Recognize the word? It where we get our English word "exegesis." It means, literally, to lead out from, to go before, as a leader. The Greek context is of one who shows, or leads, by example. How do you "know" a person? Do you acquaimt yourself with them, learn how they think, react, emote, speak. In other words, let him/her "show" him/herself to you? Of course you do! You learn his/her attributes and determine, based on them, whether you like and enjoy this person or not. With God, learning of Him through Christ is seeing those attributes at work, and realizing He is indeed God. You probably should have stopped here, as you had revealed your inability to understand far too greatly for your own comfort, but instead, stubbornly, you continued.Click to expand...
Who said this? Or how does the video pit "the attributes of God ... against each other"? This response has no bearing on anything under discussion. It comes out of left field and utterly fails to address anything anyone has said, or that the video represents.Click to expand...
I have to wonder what is behind the bizarre nature of these statements. I'd love to see you attempt to justify them, but I doubt you understand the nature of omniscience and omnipresence well enough to discuss them. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made such misguided statements in the first place.Click to expand...
As I've said before, you obviously do not even begin to comprehend that portion of the video, so you aren't qualified to discuss it. You shouldn't try.Click to expand...
The obvious nature and attributes of the three-dimensional spatial existence we know cannot begin to explain the nature and attributes of other dimensions, and, as opposed to the video going "off the rails" at this point, it is you who do so, and prove you should never have commented on the thread at all. Just as you can't understand that God can't fit in the three dimensions we know, you can't understand why that disqualifies you from discussing the nature of dimensions beyond these.Click to expand...
You use terms such as "spatial" and "material" to describe them, and you unwittingly use similar thinking to explain God. You continue to "explain" God in human terms when the video and your fellow members posting on this thread have time and time again told you it can't be done. Has that stopped you from trying? No. To your embarrassment.Click to expand...
This is why you should have stuck to your promise not to "argue the point too much." You don't know what you're talking about, and the deeper you attempt to go into the subject, the more evident that becomes.Click to expand...
You accuse us of trying to explain God in material terms, when the reality is, you are the only one doing that.Click to expand...
You do it because you don't understand, and won't admit you don't understand.Click to expand...
We have been honest enough -- and so has the video -- to state that up front. Our explanations do not use spatial references such as the known three dimensions to explain God.Click to expand...
Yours does. Simply by this:
You quote me out of context: “Even if we go with the idea that God can see everything because he is omnipresent, that only requires God to be more than three dimensions if you already assume that God is material.”Click to expand...Click to expand...
Seriously, either you can’t follow a logical argument or you’re being deliberately dishonest. I really don’t know which. The context of that sentence is commentary on the argument of the video which I have documented.
You admit, after all this time and wasted irritation of electrons, that you do see God as being required to be described in human terms, within human understanding.Click to expand...
He can't be described in that manner. You have totally discredited yourself. Please stop now.Click to expand...
Now… Why don’t you actually deal with the three issues I have raised regarding the video instead of spending your time estimating the level of my intelligence, my motivations, my credibility, my theology, my understanding of philosophy and logic, and the general cleanliness of my socks?
Here are the three errors I have identified. The video claims:
1.) God must be more than spirit because He would not be greater than the angels if He was not.
2.) That God must be more than three spatial dimensions (which assumes that God is material) because He is everywhere at once. (The word “spatial” – which is used twice in the video – refers to a position in matter.)
3.) That God appears as three Persons "for our sake" - not because He is eternally three and one (which is modalism).
What do you have to say about these three assertions? -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supportersaturneptune said: ↑So do you think that each of the Members of the Trinity has creation divided into three areas, and that each exercises omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence in His one third then signals the other two what is going on?Click to expand...
All Three are One, and work in perfect harmony.Click to expand...
It is obvious that God is in another higher dimension because of his attributes. The only reason the person in the video went down a dimension from ours is that is all we can possibly understand. Once he established how hard it would be for a two dimensional person to communicate or describe a three dimensional person, it is not too hard to realize how futile it is to describe our Creator in a higher or infinite type of dimension. It was only an illustration to fit our minds.Click to expand...
I would really like to see you do better.Click to expand... -
Baptist Believer said: ↑Here are the three errors I have identified. The video claims:
1.) God must be more than spirit because He would not be greater than the angels if He was not.Click to expand...
Baptist Believer said: ↑2.) That God must be more than three spatial dimensions (which assumes that God is material) because He is everywhere at once. (The word “spatial” – which is used twice in the video – refers to a position in matter.)Click to expand...
Baptist Believer said: ↑3.) That God appears as three Persons "for our sake" - not because He is eternally three and one (which is modalism).Click to expand...
Modalism is the claim that God does not simultaneously manifest Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but took first the Person of the Father as His expression of self, then took the Person of the Son when Jesus was incarnate, thus abandoning the "Father manifestation," and finally abandoned the "Jesus manifestation" to adopt the image of the Holy Spirit. That is modalism. What you describe is not.
Baptist Believer said: ↑What do you have to say about these three assertions?Click to expand... -
thisnumbersdisconnected said: ↑That's been explained to you, and you deny that God is "more than spirit" yet He must be, or He absolutely cannot be greater than the angels, His created beings, for they, too, are spirits. John told the woman at the well in Sychar, "God is spirit," but that word -- the Greek pneuma -- is also used of demons, angels, the human spirit, and a host of other uses. It does not limit God to simply being "spirit" but describes only one attribute of God.
You're right. It is used twice, not to describe God, but to state emphatically that God cannot be understood in human, spatial terms. You have spent all these posts claiming the video says something it absolutely does not say. Once would be a misunderstanding. The number of times you have declared this is not misunderstanding, it is pure ignorance.
Despite linking websites earlier in this thread that explain modalism, you have proven you didn't read them, and you do not understand modalism. Modalism denies the eternal Triune nature of God. You obviously do not understand that.
Modalism is the claim that God does not simultaneously manifest Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but took first the Person of the Father as His expression of self, then took the Person of the Son when Jesus was incarnate, thus abandoning the "Father manifestation," and finally abandoned the "Jesus manifestation" to adopt the image of the Holy Spirit. That is modalism. What you describe is not.
I have nothing to say. You have said it all, proving what a giant waste of time attempting to edify you has been.Click to expand... -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The main point of the video is that God is hyper-dimensional. I can grasp and understand that concept. He must be beyond our three dimensions because he is all knowing and omnipresent. God describes Himself in the Bible as, "I AM".
But then the video breaks down trying to expound on this concept of hyper-dimensionality. Statements like:
"God must be more than a spirit because He created the angels."
"Lucifer may have had a chance in the war in heaven, if God was just a unitarian spirit"
"If God is Omniscient, then He must see everything." [followed by]
"If He can see everything, He must be everywhere at once."
This is simply extra Biblical clap-trap. It's ironic that in trying to point out that God is hyper-dimensional the video actually dumbs God down by employing anthropomorphisms.
As much as I liked the premise of the video the execution of the explanation was weak and created more problems than trying to understand the Trinity. -
InTheLight said: ↑The main point of the video is that God is hyper-dimensional. I can grasp and understand that concept. He must be beyond our three dimensions because he is all knowing and omnipresent. God describes Himself in the Bible as, "I AM".
But then the video breaks down trying to expound on this concept of hyper-dimensionality. Statements like:
"God must be more than a spirit because He created the angels."
"Lucifer may have had a chance in the war in heaven, if God was just a unitarian spirit"
"If God is Omniscient, then He must see everything." [followed by]
"If He can see everything, He must be everywhere at once."
This is simply extra Biblical clap-trap. It's ironic that in trying to point out that God is hyper-dimensional the video actually dumbs God down by employing anthropomorphisms.
As much as I liked the premise of the video the execution of the explanation was weak and created more problems than trying to understand the Trinity.Click to expand... -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporterquantumfaith said: ↑In the light, not for argumentation purposes. But what else do we have, if not anthropomorphisms?Click to expand...
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInTheLight said: ↑Statements like:
"God must be more than a spirit because He created the angels."
"Lucifer may have had a chance in the war in heaven, if God was just a unitarian spirit"
"If God is Omniscient, then He must see everything." [followed by]
"If He can see everything, He must be everywhere at once."
This is simply extra Biblical clap-trap... As much as I liked the premise of the video the execution of the explanation was weak and created more problems than trying to understand the Trinity.Click to expand... -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite SupporterBaptist Believer said: ↑I agree completely. I hope you don't have the privilege of ThisNumberIsDisconnected trying to "edify" you for pointing it problems with the video.Click to expand...
-
righteousdude2 said: ↑Although I am one person, I wear three hats. First, I am a father to my children. Secondly, I am a son to my parents. Third, I am a friend and a person to those I run into while moving through life!
I see God as something very similar! Which is how I can best understand Him as being one person with three responsibilities or jobs to do!
Now, if you are going to excommunicate me from the church for seeing God and the TRinity in this way, so be it! It works for me, and the ground has yet to swallow me up. The sky has not released lightening bolts to strike me dead. And I am still moving in HIs power to do His work for His Kingdom! So, He hasn't fired me yet, and that is a good thing!
BTW - Great post! It should garner tons of input, squabbles and debates! :laugh:Click to expand...
That seems to imply Modualism though, a belief that One God manifests Himself as times as being the father, other as the Son, or as the Spirit, yet NOT 3 seperate persons, but same one in differing roles! -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite SupporterYeshua1 said: ↑That seems to imply Modualism though, a belief that One God manifests Himself as times as being the father, other as the Son, or as the Spirit, yet NOT 3 seperate persons, but same one in differing roles!Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that view is very popular in churches today because many of our preachers/teachers don't know any better. -
Baptist Believer said: ↑Yes, that is exactly right. He is describing a modalist view.
Unfortunately, that view is very popular in churches today because many of our preachers/teachers don't know any better.Click to expand...
And still, you indicate you don't really understand Modalism, by agreeing that with Yeshua1 that RD2 is espousing it. He isn't. Modalism is not the manifestation of God as either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit at differing times, varying the way He appears according to His whim. Modalism is the Oneness belief that God manifested Himself as the Father to Israel, as Jesus to first-century would-be believers, and as the Holy Spirit to the church since, up to now. Modalism does not teach He puts on and takes off those "hats" as He sees fit. Modalism teaches He was first the Father, then the Son, and now the Holy Spirit. No matter. Either view is wrong.
Again, the video doesn't teach Modalism. RD2 isn't teaching Modalism.
If you're going to criticize a false teaching, please make sure you actually know what it is first.
Page 2 of 6