The Trinity as Rocket Science

[Ahanu]

You say that the universe is a part of God. But you don't think we are IN God. Therefore, according to your logic, we are not in the universe.

Conversely, if you would agree that we are in the universe, and the universe is a part of God (this is per your belief), then we are in God.

No, I said the universe ACCORDING TO PANENTHEISM is a part of God. The second sentence explains Wil's viewpoint. The third sentence contrasts my viewpoint with Wil's viewpoint.

I can see how you can read it that way, however.

 

[IowaGuy]

No, I said the universe ACCORDING TO PANENTHEISM is a part of God.

OK, the logic in my post applies to pantheism and panentheism, YMMV.

But myself, being somewhat of a pantheist, have never understood how people can think the universe is separate from God (The Great Spirit) and not part of God. As I type this I am looking out at the beautiful moon which is currently just above the horizon. This is not part of God? There are millions of stars beyond the moon, farther away than my mind can comprehend, some whose light we cannot even see; these are not part of God either?

Where does God start and where does God end? If God is infinite, would the stars and moon not also be included?

The idea that God is distinct from the universe sounds like an idea concocted in a church or monestary somewhere and not by peoples who spend their time outside in nature.

 

[Ahanu]

Where does God start and where does God end?

To me, in the light of my readings of Baha'i Writings, this question is like asking, "How much does Thursday weigh?" because, in relation to God, the stars and moon are an illusion, but, in relation to human consciousness, the stars and moon have a real existence. The Reality of God cannot lower Itself to inferior states--just as the reality of a human being cannot lower itself to the reality of a mineral. God does not start or end in this universe: in relation to God this universe is an illusion.

God transcends the observable universe.

The idea that God is distinct from the universe sounds like an idea concocted in a church or monestary somewhere and not by peoples who spend their time outside in nature.

So I take it you're saying theists have no reverence for nature?

To me, saying God is not distinct from the universe is like saying, "I believe other spheres of reality do not exist outside my own."

It seems you believe pantheists hold a reverence for nature and that theists do not hold a reverence for nature.

 

[IowaGuy]

in relation to God this universe is an illusion.

So humans, being part of the universe, are also an illusion in relation to God?

It seems you believe pantheists hold a reverence for nature and that theists do not hold a reverence for nature.

I didn't mean for it to come across that strong. There are, of course, numerous examples of theists throughout history with very strong reverence for nature, including many of my relatives.

But I do think that one's day-to-day life affects one's view of "God". Witness the Native American cultures. Most had some sort of pantheist/panentheist belief (Great Spirit, Wankan Tanka, etc). I think spending 24 hours per day/365 days per year in nature, depending on nature for your daily sustenance (vs. going to the grocery store), constantly dealing with predators that can end your life; these sort of experiences, IMHO, lead one down the path of pantheism/panentheism and not towards a view that The Great Spirit is distinct from reality, or that the earth/universe is just "an illusion" in relation to God.

John Muir captures this concept:
"The hills and groves were God's first temples,
the more they are cut down and hewn into cathedrals and churches,
the farther off and dimmer seems the Lord himself."

Modern man lives quite apart and separate from nature, compared to earlier primitive hunter-gatherer civilizations. And many if not most of those earlier primitive civilizations (at least here in North America) had pantheist and panentheist belief systems. That was the point I was trying to make, that the belief that this earth/universe is not part of God is more likely to hatch in a cathedral or church (where the Lord seems farther off and dimmer) than out in a prairie or virgin forest or looking up at the stars at night, IMHO.

To me, saying God is not distinct from the universe is like saying, "I believe other spheres of reality do not exist outside my own."

And how is it that you DO know other spheres of reality exist outside your own? There is no scientific proof of a universe beyond ours (although it is possible that other universes exist).

To me, the only sphere of reality that I'm sure of is my own; this universe. So if God doesn't exist in this universe then God may not exist at all.

 

[Ahanu]

And how is it that you DO know other spheres of reality exist outside your own? There is no scientific proof of a universe beyond ours (although it is possible that other universes exist).

To me, the only sphere of reality that I'm sure of is my own; this universe. So if God doesn't exist in this universe then God may not exist at all.

I received the phrase "spheres of reality" from Robert Lanza's Biocentrism. I do not mean to say multiple universes exist; instead, the unviserse takes different forms depending on who is looking. For example, to me, it makes sense to say a tree outside my home will "see" the universe quite differently than I. Science is not yet advanced enough to tell me what it is like to be a tree, so, right now, I'm just going with what makes sense for me. I mention this a lot because this idea has a strong influence on the Baha'is concept of "God."

So humans, being part of the universe, are also an illusion in relation to God?

Yes.

". . . it is evident that although beings in relation to the existence of God have no existence, but are like the mirage or the reflections in the mirror, yet in their own degree they exist."
-`Abdu'l-Bahá

And many if not most of those earlier primitive civilizations (at least here in North America) had pantheist and panentheist belief systems.

Okay.

Pantheism rests on the assumption the human brain comprehends the Real. I think I will use "the Real" in replacement for "the Mind of God."

While I think you are right in saying Native Americans could not separate God from nature because they frequently lived their day to day lives in nature, I do not think this is the only factor. It could be like 2D paintings in caves, because, in the sense that ancient painters could not represent the world in 3D, ancient Native Americans may have not of had the capacity to think in terms of different spheres of reality within the universe, and so they could not convey these concepts in words. Just speculation.

John Muir captures this concept:
"The hills and groves were God's first temples,
the more they are cut down and hewn into cathedrals and churches,
the farther off and dimmer seems the Lord himself."

This discussion reminds me of William Wordsworth's poem:

"The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.--Great God! I'd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn."
-William Wordsworth

 

[radarmark]

I received the phrase "spheres of reality" from Robert Lanza's Biocentrism. I do not mean to say multiple universes exist; instead, the unviserse takes different forms depending on who is looking. For example, to me, it makes sense to say a tree outside my home will "see" the universe quite differently than I. Science is not yet advanced enough to tell me what it is like to be a tree, so, right now, I'm just going with what makes sense for me. I mention this a lot because this idea has a strong influence on the Baha'is concept of "God."

Biocentrism has one major (perhaps fatal flaw). When the living thing ends, so does the universe. While you state "I do not mean multiple universes exist" the source you are using (Lanza) assumes that.

For me it all comes dwon to what you mean by "universe". Most use it (whether or not they know it) in a scientific sense, that is the universe is matter that we see, taste, hear, etc. If you step back and include mind and consciousness as part of the universe, then it is something different. I have not experienced this a G!d, though. The Divine is beyond, hence, I an a panentheist... G!d is more than we know or can know.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia.

 

[Ahanu]

I'll reply in your "New Physics" thread.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/new-physics-14558.html

If you have any thoughts on the Trinity from Christian thinkers, please add them!

 

[radarmark]

That was rather abrupt, Ahanu, since I have participated on this thread before. I was merely pointing out that your reference could be flawed.

The trinity is a theological construct, just as is pantheism and panentheism. I differ with both you and IG in that I know that it is possible to contruct and believe in a pantheist/panentheist belief system is possible in modern society, whether the Hmong practicing in Minneapolis, the Navajo practicing in Albuquerque, or the Process Theologan practicing in Claremeont.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

 

[Ben Masada]

To say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God is mysterious. Nobody knows what Catholics are saying . . . not even those dashingly good-looking Catholics know. End of story. We can all go home now. Do I really need to continue? However, Catholics want to prove it’s not nonsense. According to Aquinas, the Trinity is not contradictory.

It might help to glance at the Incarnation. Aquinas, when discussing the Incarnation, believes for Jesus to be divine and human does not involve a contradiction, as would for something to be both a square and circle. Don’t look surprised! Physicists should know: wave/particle duality comes with the field. At the moment two languages are used. Perhaps in the future a single language will express this, but, for now, that is the way it is. In this sense Aquinas is in the same boat as physicists. He believes that, in the future, a theoretical development will allow us to see how God can be both one and three. Just because we cannot see how both can be true should not faze us.

Now we can say two things about God: God is one and there are three who are God.

The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and all three are the same God, yet all three are not identical. Aquinas speaks of God’s activity within himself. Consider your own selves: carving, writing, and teaching, for example, are actions upon something else, but growing and understanding, for example, happens within yourself. So what about God’s act of understanding within himself? We'll return to this question shortly. For Aquinas, understanding has something to do with not being material. To understand a nature is to possess the nature immaterially. To possess the nature of a dog materially is to be a dog, but to possess the nature of a dog immaterially is to understand a dog. For Aquinas we can understand because humans are just about able to transcend our materiality. Though understanding is an act involving bodily activity which cannot take place without the body working, it is not itself an act of the body. Therefore, since God cannot be material, he cannot be non-intellectual, so he must possess understanding. We do not know what it means for God to understand, but we know God does not lack the capacity to understand. God can understand himself or form a concept of himself. When we understand a nature—for example, a dog or apple—we form a concept of it in our minds. The concept, the meaning of the word, was called the word of the mind (verbum mentis) by medievals. Back to God’s understanding. When God forms a concept of himself, it must be God. This act of God’s self-understanding involves the bringing forth of a concept (verbum mentis), bringing about a relationship between God and the concept. The language of generation, of Son and Father, now step in.

For Catholics the Father and Son do not differ. The Father generates the Son, and the Son is generated by the Father, so the only distinction is in relationship.

As a side note, in biblical biology women did not contribute to the generative process. So, since during those ancient times Christian theologians did not know of modern biology, it would make more since to talk about God the Parents rather than God the Father.


The post above come from my notes on an essay in Silence and the Word.

IMHO, the Trinity cannot stand before the truth of the Absolute Unity of God. Here is why:

The Absolute Unity of God



Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"

Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labour.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibilitly of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be supperfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.

Now, besides being God absolutely One, He is incorporeal. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or he would be comparable to other beings; but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be One. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits. Therefore, God is absolutely One and not three.

Ben:

 

[Ahanu]

Marcus Borg, in Speaking Christian, discusses an interesting schism in Christianity over a dispute about the Trinity:

"The issue was whether the Holy Spirit 'proceeds' from 'the Father' or from 'the Father and the Son.' The Western church affirmed the latter, and the Eastern church the former. In 1054, Christianity split in two over this issue, producing Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Each side excommunicated the other.

There is something at stake in this issue, even as it's unclear that the two sides in the conflict had any inkling of it. And that is if God's Spirit 'proceeds' from 'the Father and the Son' (and not from 'the Father only'), then God can be known only through Jesus and thus only in Christianity. But if God's Spirit 'proceeds' form 'the Father only,' then it is possible that God can be known apart from Jesus and thus in other religions."

Clearly, Southern Baptist Christians believe "God's Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son." Hmm . . . I wonder which position Thomas Aquinas takes on this?!

 

[Dream]

Clearly, Southern Baptist Christians believe "God's Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son." Hmm . . . I wonder which position Thomas Aquinas takes on this?!

SBC members often use Jesus and God interchangeably in prayers, but not always. There are some people who do not. Some people also pray to the Holy Spirit directly.

 

[Thomas]

Marcus Borg, in Speaking Christian, discusses an interesting schism in Christianity over a dispute about the Trinity

"The issue was whether the Holy Spirit 'proceeds' from 'the Father' or from 'the Father and the Son.' The Western church affirmed the latter, and the Eastern church the former. In 1054, Christianity split in two over this issue, producing Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Each side excommunicated the other.

Well, there are a number of questions ... the cause of the schism of 1054 was not Trinitarian doctrine, although the doctrine was one of the many theological differences.

There is something at stake in this issue, even as it's unclear that the two sides in the conflict had any inkling of it.

Really? How disingenuous of M. Borg. If there was no inkling, then there would have been no dispute, would there? And to say that neither East nor West had no 'inkling' of the theological distinction of one of the most fundamental aspects of Trinitarian theology is utter nonsense ... I'm afraid Borg is talking rubbish here, either out of ignorance, or in support of some personal agenda.

And that is if God's Spirit 'proceeds' from 'the Father and the Son' (and not from 'the Father only'), then God can be known only through Jesus and thus only in Christianity.

Wrong. That's basic Christian doctrine on both sides of the debate.

But if God's Spirit 'proceeds' form 'the Father only,' then it is possible that God can be known apart from Jesus and thus in other religions.

Wrong again — it would appear M Borg doesn't understand the basics of Christian theology, East or West ... or he is intentionally misrepresenting ... and I suspect the latter.

In fact the Father can only be known in the Son, and the Son can only be known in the Holy Spirit. Both sides agree on this point.

Clearly, Southern Baptist Christians believe "God's Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son." Hmm . . . I wonder which position Thomas Aquinas takes on this?!

Well, the statement is inexact by saying 'God's Spirit' rather than 'the Holy Spirit', so the Doctor Angelicus would have something to say about shoddy theological expression ... but if by that expression SBC mean the Holy Spirit, then yes, the Latin Tradition states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, whereas the Greek insist from the Father only.

Latterly, more nuanced theological expression on both sides have found common ground.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Or what Jesus meant by everything he had done we would do and more...

Not without divine assistance, obviously. Muslims, by the way, take this to mean the coming of the Prophet ...

Or ... Or ... at some times ... at others... it goes on and on and on.

This is what happens when you abandon tradition, you're lost, and your guess is as good as any other.

Paul asked us to put the mind of Christ in our mind...

This, Wil, is the principle issue I continually challenge you on ... in all your interpretations of Scripture, you keep yourself as central and render God as subsequent and subsidiary to your own being.

Paul does not ask us to put the mind of Christ in our mind, like some add-on extra ...
1 Corinthians 2:16: "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that we may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

1 Corinthians 4:17: "... who will put you in mind of my (Paul) ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach everywhere in every church."
So the point is that we should conform ourselves to Christ, not that Christ must conform Himself to us ...

1 Corinthians 1:10: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment."
The same mind being Christ's mind, not Paul's, nor yours, nor mine.

Philippians 2:5: "For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus"
'This mind' being the divine mind, not your mind ... and the disposition of this mind was, according to the text, one of humility and self-emptying — kenosis — the opposite of which you speak.

If it was so big to comprehend that Jesus confused his oneness at the end of his life...

You see, you're now transposing your confusion to Him. Any chance you might be confused, and He not?

... how is it so hard to understand that we have the same comprehension issues with our divinity?

Because if we were divine, we would not be confused. Ergo, we are not divine, we just like to think we are.

There is only one God, as the Abrahamic Traditions state ... and sorry old chum, but we are not It.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Ahanu]

Well, there are a number of questions ... the cause of the schism of 1054 was not Trinitarian doctrine, although the doctrine was one of the many theological differences.

Okay. So you're saying the emphasis on the Trinity issue obscures other theological differences. In other words, the Trinity was not the reason for the split. Also, Borg confuses the debate.

Wrong. That's basic Christian doctrine on both sides of the debate.

Hmm . . . May I suggest beginning with the words "What if I were to suggest . . . ?" instead of saying "wrong," because it makes me feel like you're talking down to me. I understand that you are more knowledgeable about theology, but try not to make me feel so bad about my lesser theological knowledge.

In fact the Father can only be known in the Son, and the Son can only be known in the Holy Spirit. Both sides agree on this point.

I'm trying to understand why Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics do not agree on their understanding of the Trinity.

For example, Thomas, you say people in other religions can go to heaven, but Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Church, says otherwise:

"The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that Muslims are “included in the plan of salvation” by virtue of their claim to “hold the faith of Abraham.”

In the words of Lumen Gentium, one of the major documents adopted at Vatican II:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

The same language is basic to the current official catechism of the church as well. Within the context of the document, this language clearly implies that Muslims are within the scope of God’s salvation. While the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Islam is both erroneous and incomplete, it also holds that sincere Muslims can be included in Christ’s salvation through their faithfulness to monotheism and Islam.

Thus, when the Catholic Pope speaks of “respecting” Islam, he can do so in a way that evangelical Christians cannot. Within the context of official Catholic teaching, the Pope can create a fusion of diplomacy and doctrine.

While evangelical Christians face a different context to this question, the urgency is the same. We are not playing a diplomatic role as head of state, but we are called to be ambassadors for Christ and his Gospel. In this light, any belief system that pulls persons away from the Gospel of Christ, denies and subverts Christian truth, and blinds sinners from seeing Christ as the only hope of salvation is, by biblical definition, a way that leads to destruction. Islam, like every other rival to the Christian gospel, takes persons captive and is devoid of genuine hope for salvation.

Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God’s Son, and takes millions of souls captive.

This does not make for good diplomacy, but we are called to witness, not public relations. We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.

The papal visit to Jordan points directly to the problem of the papacy itself and to the confusion of Roman Catholic theology on this very point. To understand Islam is to know that we cannot identify Muslims as those who “along with us adore the one and merciful God.” To deny the Trinity is to worship another God."

AlbertMohler.com – R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Should Christians “Respect” Other Religions?

Mohler points out his beliefs:

If you deny the Trinity, then you do not pass go, you do not collect eternal salvation.

 

[Ahanu]

Well, the statement is inexact by saying 'God's Spirit' rather than 'the Holy Spirit', so the Doctor Angelicus would have something to say about shoddy theological expression ... but if by that expression SBC mean the Holy Spirit, then yes, the Latin Tradition states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, whereas the Greek insist from the Father only.

Well, I'm just guessing. Read the post above to see what I'm saying about the Southern Baptist Church. I would love to hear your opinion on Albert Mohler's blog post above.

 

[Ahanu]

This is what happens when you abandon tradition, you're lost, and your guess is as good as any other.

I'm doubtful tradition is foolproof.

 

[IowaGuy]

I'm trying to understand why Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics do not agree on their understanding of the Trinity.

For example, Thomas, you say people in other religions can go to heaven, but Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Church, says otherwise

Ahanu - I grew up Southern Baptist, and many of my relatives still belong to the SBC (I don't anymore). IMHO, the easiest way to understand Southern Baptist religious thought is: they are right and everyone else is wrong. Period.

This was my biggest turn-off to SBC. How can someone, who by chance happens to be born into a particular religion (SBC), claim they are right and everyone else is wrong?

My $.02,
Iowa Guy

 

[Ahanu]

Ahanu - I grew up Southern Baptist, and many of my relatives still belong to the SBC (I don't anymore). IMHO, the easiest way to understand Southern Baptist religious thought is: they are right and everyone else is wrong. Period.

This was my biggest turn-off to SBC. How can someone, who by chance happens to be born into a particular religion (SBC), claim they are right and everyone else is wrong?

My $.02,
Iowa Guy

So what did they teach you about the Trinity? I grew up in a Southern Baptist family too. Whenever the preacher talked about the Trinity, it was to prove other religions are wrong. Definitions of the Trinity and its practical applications, if there were any, were pretty iffy.

 

[Thomas]

In other words, the Trinity was not the reason for the split. Also, Borg confuses the debate.

The cause of the schism was Constantinople's determination to put itself at the head of the Church/ It saw Rome as the final stepping-stone to power, by this time it had eclipsed Jerusalem (a nominal patriarchy) and Alexandra and Antioch, all older patriarchates, on the basis that Constantinople was the 'New Rome' ... the schism was basically sociopolitical.

Hmm . . . May I suggest beginning with the words "What if I were to suggest . . . ?" instead of saying "wrong," because it makes me feel like you're talking down to me.

Sorry Ahanu, I was addressing Borg, not your good self. Borg misrepresents doctrine where and when it suits his polemical endeavour, it would seem, and needs to be confronted head on, and in no uncertain terms.

I do not expect you or indeed anyone here to have a grasp of Christian theology, that would be unfair, it's a vast and difficult subject! I expect those who call themselves Christian however, and who preach/teach, to at least be able to present doctrine accurately. It's not hard – there are books that do it all for you.

If Borg had consulted 'The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma' (W. Ott) or similar before making such silly statements, he would have seen his own errors. I can only assume such poor scholarship is an attempt to pass off his opinions/assumptions as fact. It's really inexcusable for a man in his position, and says a lot about the Jesus Seminar which is held in disrepute by serious scholars.

Sorry again for any offence I might have caused.

I'm trying to understand why Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics do not agree on their understanding of the Trinity.

OK. I don't know SBC doctrine, so I'd need input from someone who does to offer a view.

For example, Thomas, you say people in other religions can go to heaven, but Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Church, says otherwise ...

What if I were to suggest () that this is a particular reference? The same document, Lumen Gentium, states:
"At all times and in every race God has given welcome to whosoever fears Him and does what is right." (LG, 2:9)
"Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience." (LG, 2:16)

The papal visit to Jordan points directly to the problem of the papacy itself and to the confusion of Roman Catholic theology on this very point. To understand Islam is to know that we cannot identify Muslims as those who “along with us adore the one and merciful God.” To deny the Trinity is to worship another God."[/I]

I disagree. I believe Moslems and Jews worship the same God as I do, but their knowledge is deficient.

In fact, if Mohammed had got his teaching on Christianity from a Catholic or an Orthodox, and not a Nestorian, things might have been different ... (but I doubt it).

Islam accuses Christianity of tritheism, which shows they do not understand the doctrine, for it is not that.

If you deny the Trinity, then you do not pass go, you do not collect eternal salvation.

That assumes that God is absolutely bound by the Church ... be it Roman Catholic of Southern Baptist Christian, which I do not believe to be the case. I think the Church is bound to God, not the other way round.

My belief is, if you want to know God, there is no better way than in and through the Church, but that does not restrict God to operating within the Church alone, nor exclusively — God is as God wills — and God draws all creatures to Himself, all who listen to His call.

But if you ask me the way to participate in the Divine Life, then I would say the Church.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

The problem, Ahanu, is that the Church (whether Ante-Nicean, Oriental, Eastern, Catholic, or Protestant) has been studying the Trinity for quite some time now (2 millenia more or less), so tradition does count if one wants to discuss the differnt interpretations of the Trinity.

Thomas was not referring to you, but to Marcus Borg. Who, by the way is demonstratably incorrect ("wrong") in his statement: "The issue was whether the Holy Spirit 'proceeds' from 'the Father' or from 'the Father and the Son.' The Western church affirmed the latter, and the Eastern church the former. In 1054, Christianity split in two over this issue, producing Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Each side excommunicated the other."

Thus your rephrasing of Borg, "And that is if God's Spirit 'proceeds' from 'the Father and the Son' (and not from 'the Father only'), then God can be known only through Jesus and thus only in Christianity." Through no fault of your own is factually incorrect (there is, in fact no difference in the definition of Trinity).

This Trinity stuff gets awfully complicated, as far as the Eastern or Oriental Church goes, you might want to start at Dogmatics.

I am sure Thomas was not implying anything about you. The problem is that the 1,800 years of tradition (while not foolproof) is not something that can be disproved are argued about (at least in a deep way) unless one knows the tradition. Nowdays we have everything from UU to LDS to JW to SDA (recent religions < 200 years) which muddy the old-fashioned, clear cut lines of Pre-Nicean, Eastern, Oriental, Catholic, and (mainstream) Protestant thoughts.

http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/soc-swk/ree/Sergeev_Divine%20Wisdom_Aug%202000.pdf is a pretty good modern Othodox discussion to "kick off" your understanding from the contemporary end.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!