So it goes ...
- Reaction score
- London UK
We, as Trinitarians, don't dispute that.There is the Holy Spirit.
There are the Messengers, who told us that
There is only One God.
I mean the image analogy, the light shining through windows. That is what I mean by prophecy, and indeed each and every one of us is a widow to that light, albeit the window might by obscured ... that image stands for everyone, not just messengers.That is not prophecy, that is the God we can know, it is inclusive of all God given Faiths.
But I do not content with you, I quite like some of your statements, as profound and to the point.
But I fear you have been misled, if what I read of the Baha'i is the case.
With regard to Baha'i commentary on the Trinity, I offer this, from the https://bahaiteachings.org/the-trinity-wars-logic-reason-and-faith/ website:
... Most of the Christian theologians who have tried to explain the doctrine of the Trinity have failed.
Clearly an opinionated statement. It's simply not true.
The prominent Christian philosopher Augustine, when he tried to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, ultimately concluded that an explanation is beyond human language, saying that “one must believe before one understands.”
This is simply disingenuous, and on a site claiming to be a teaching site, is shameful.
The correct quote is: “unless you believe, you will not understand” and Augustine is paraphrasing Isaiah 7:9.
This was said not in reference to the Trinity, but in a commentary on John 7:14-18 in Tractate 29:
"Do you wish to understand? Believe. For God has said by the prophet: Unless you believe, you shall not understand. Isaiah 7:9 To the same purpose what the Lord here also added as He went on — "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself." (John 7:17).
Augustine is arguing that if you refuse to believe something, you will never be open-minded enough to understand it. You must at least admit the possibility of something before you can begin to understand it. It also refers to Mark 4:12: "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand".
This appeal to faith rather than reason worked for some time during the medieval age, but as humanity progressed and education became more widespread, a pure appeal to accept a doctrine on faith alone began to lose its appeal.
And yet a Baha'i belief is exactly that – an act of faith.
After Augustine’s failure to describe the Trinity in logical or understandable terms ...
Flat wrong, a gross deception.
Augustine's De Trinitate is regarded by many as a theological masterpiece.
and he (St Tomas Aquinas) said, in his landmark work Summa Theologica, that the three-person theory of the Trinity could not be defended in any rational or understandable way:
"It would seem that there are not several persons in God. For person is the individual substance of a rational nature. If then there are several persons in God, there must be several substances; which appears to be heretical."
This is underhand, shameful deception. It's appalling that the Baha'i should give it credence. The author clearly assumes the ignorance of the reader, provides no citation to the text, and mis-contextualises it to imply the opposite of what St Thomas is saying.
In any reputable teaching post, the author would be thrown out. On any reputable site it would be removed.
So let me correct this shameful misrepresentation of the Angelic Doctor.
Summa Theologica (Q30, a1) in its undistorted context (text in red, my comments black):
Q30: The Plurality of Persons in God
Article 1: Are there several persons in God
Objection 1: It would seem that there are not several persons in God. For person is "the individual substance of a rational nature." If then there are several persons in God, there must be several substances; which appears to be heretical.
Note: Aquinas uses what is known as the 'scholastic method' of thesis (statement) antithesis (objection) and synthesis (answer). The author has cited the objection and says it's St Thomas' own view – whereas St Thomas actually counters the objection:
Reply to Objection 1. The definition of "person" includes "substance," not as meaning the essence, but the "suppositum" which is made clear by the addition of the term "individual." To signify the substance thus understood, the Greeks use the name "hypostasis." So, as we say, "Three persons," they say "Three hypostases." We are not, however, accustomed to say Three substances, lest we be understood to mean three essences or natures, by reason of the equivocal signification of the term.
The Baha’i view of the Trinity has a similar emphasis on the oneness of God, and it also defends rationality, asking that no one be required to accept a tenet of faith that can’t be rationally and logically understood:
And yet it can be rationally and logically explained and understood. And has been.
No it hasn't.The question of the Trinity, since the time of His Holiness Christ until now, is the belief of the Christians, and to the present time all the learned among them are perplexed and confounded.
Sorry, but this comes across as rather self-serving.
The Neoplatonists understood the 'Intelligible Triad' of Being-Life-Intellect, the Vedanta has Being-Consciousness-Bliss ... such metaphysical systems explain a unity of Three in One and One in Three that gives rise to multiplicity, and some argue that without which how multiplicity proceeds from the One cannot be adequately explained.
Sorry if that offends, @Tone Bristow-Stagg, but the truth will out.