Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    We've already seen quite a bit of evidence to support the contention that you do not understand even the basics the doctrine of the Trinity, but do you at least admit, at long last, that it is the product of theological reflection?
    I grew up in the Roman Church and I full well understand the Trinity and the belief that Jesus Christ is God incarnate.
    In the case of the Trinity, all other views were extinguished by Roman authorities, and determined by Roman decree. I believe it is a Roman view of Gods.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I believe my choice represents the most complete possibly considering the universal spiritual nature of humanity and existence. Your use of 'truly' is a bit problematic here. Truly we are all humans making human choices.
      I believe we can make choices to better understand, rather than denigrate, the views of others.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I said I will do this after I receive the books.
      I will take that as an implicit and therefore immature concession that your current accusation was irresponsible. You cannot even provide a quote of mine where you think I misstated Westermann's views.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Is that a yes or no to my question. If no, than you dismiss the beliefs of the apostles and church fathers who believed these as factual events, and foundation of the Traditional Churches.
      You did not ask a question. But my view should already be obvious to you. As I've stated previously, I prefer the views of some church fathers over others with respect to understanding the nature of original sin and the Incarnation. But I do not dismiss the views of the fathers who held the alternative view. I have also acknowledged value in their view. There is no need to dismiss alternative approaches to the problem and mystery of evil and the theology of the creation and incarnation. You should also already know that I personally do not believe that the story of Adam and Eve to be factual history. I do not dismiss those who do, but I invite them to read the story in Hebrew to better understand why I appreciate the story in a different way.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I grew up in the Roman Church and I full well understand the Trinity and the belief that Jesus Christ is God incarnate.
        In the case of the Trinity, all other views were extinguished by Roman authorities, and determined by Roman decree. I believe it is a Roman view of Gods.
        But, if I recall correctly, you think of it as a kind of polytheism, right? How do you account for the greater emphasis of the individuality of persons in the Trinity in the Eastern Orthodox tradition?

        I will ask my previous question again: Do you at least admit, at long last, that the doctrine of the Trinity is itself the product of theological reflection?
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          I believe we can make choices to better understand, rather than denigrate, the views of others.
          It is unfortunate that you view disagreement as denigrate, and then take the denigrating high road that our disagreements are because I lack the knowledge you have

          I will take that as an implicit and therefore immature concession that your current accusation was irresponsible. You cannot even provide a quote of mine where you think I misstated Westermann's views.
          No

          You did not ask a question. But my view should already be obvious to you. As I've stated previously, I prefer the views of some church fathers over others with respect to understanding the nature of original sin and the Incarnation. But I do not dismiss the views of the fathers who held the alternative view. I have also acknowledged value in their view. There is no need to dismiss alternative approaches to the problem and mystery of evil and the theology of the creation and incarnation. You should also already know that I personally do not believe that the story of Adam and Eve to be factual history. I do not dismiss those who do, but I invite them to read the story in Hebrew to better understand why I appreciate the story in a different way.
          I did not refer nor asked if you believe the Adam and Eve story to be factual history. I asked if you believed as the apostles, and by far most church fathers believed that Adam and Eve were real persons, and the events involving the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' have a basis in fact.

          As before you misinterpreted my view that because Adam and Eve were real persons, therefore I believed in some sort of literal view of Genesis. Believing persons are historical figures does not translate to the belief that an ancient myth is in any way true.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • I thought I would respond again in more detail.

            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            But, if I recall correctly, you think of it as a kind of polytheism, right?
            Yes.

            How do you account for the greater emphasis of the individuality of persons in the Trinity in the Eastern Orthodox tradition?
            I am not sure it is productive to try and account for the variations of the belief in the Trinity between the different churches except the to say they evolved from the Roman Church belief in the Trinity. It remains a version of polytheism in the Eastern Orthodox as well as the Roman Church, and later the various major divisions of the Protestant Churches.

            I will ask my previous question again: Do you at least admit, at long last, that the doctrine of the Trinity is itself the product of theological reflection?
            Actually, no. We define or consider 'theological reflection' differently as I remember in our previous discussion on this topic. I consider 'theological reflection' to be more individual or possibly small group contemplation, meditation, prayer to find 'personal' meaning and significance in one's relationship to the Divine, and not the human efforts to define theology and belief, such as the Trinity, which cannot be defined by human efforts. Sort of a theological Tower of Babel.

            Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFoQFjAJahUKEwiO29TGg-_HAhWEoIAKHU4pBWs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sttaustin.org%2Fdocuments%2Fyouth%2520ministry%2FTheological_Reflection_Handbook_Section_R_Dickey.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFXHqPBZdLWezN3ezPwKECMFopBfw&sig2=ntPgOvwTtR1SuqpVSgTPHA



            Guide from the Rev. Dr. Richard Dickey, 6/2006

            The term ‘theological reflection’ has come into prominence over the last thirty years in a variety of settings and serving a number of ends. It is used to denote a process in which an individual or small group reflects on their personal or collective experience(s) in light of their faith. The aim is not only to come to new understandings about the circumstances in which people live and the faith they profess, but to identify new ways of responding that validate their experience and give voice to their truth.

            To reflect theologically is an essential element in faith formation. It is a principal means of integrating faith and life. To reflect on one’s circumstances in life is as natural as breathing. It is that innate capacity and necessity that characterizes our human condition. It is that same capacity which enables us to recognize a reality greater than ourselves. To reflect on our life experiences in light of this greater reality is to reflect ‘theo-logically.’ It is to open us to the possibility of ‘knowing’ and ‘being known’ by what some call the ‘Holy Other.’ Such reflection draws us into the realm of faith. It grounds us in an unseen reality, alters our way of ‘seeing’ and shapes our responses in all of life’s relationships.

            © Copyright Original Source

            Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-11-2015, 08:09 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              It is unfortunate that you view disagreement as denigrate, and then take the denigrating high road that our disagreements are because I lack the knowledge you have
              I do not view disagreement as denigrate. And I do not denigrate your lack of knowledge. I'm not sure of all the sources of our disagreement, but surely it is sometimes more helpful to ask a question rather than make an unfounded accusation based on ignorance or a desire to win an argument or to employ overly simplistic characterizations of the beliefs of others.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              No
              How can you possibly believe it is responsible to accuse someone of misrepresentation without being able to quote either the supposed misrepresentation or the view that is supposedly being misrepresented. I understand that you do not yet have access to the views that you say I am misrepresenting, which is bad enough, but you won't even quote me where you think I am misrepresenting Westermann. How can you believe that is responsible and do you really expect me to have intellectual respect for you when you engage in this type of behavior?

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I did not refer nor asked if you believe the Adam and Eve story to be factual history. I asked if you believed as the apostles, and by far most church fathers believed that Adam and Eve were real persons, and the events involving the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' have a basis in fact.

              As before you misinterpreted my view that because Adam and Eve were real persons, therefore I believed in some sort of literal view of Genesis. Believing persons are historical figures does not translate to the belief that an ancient myth is in any way true.
              First you said:
              "Then you would have no problem with the belief in a literal Adam and Eve, and the events that led to 'Fall and the Original sin,' as by far most of the church fathers and all the apostles believed."

              Then you asked:
              "Is that a yes or no to my question. If no, than you dismiss the beliefs of the apostles and church fathers who believed these as factual events, and foundation of the Traditional Churches."

              I do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve literally eating a piece of fruit that God commanded Adam not to eat. Because you believe in a literal Adam and Eve who literally lived some 6,000 years ago and apparently played a real role in revelation at that time, according to Baha'i beliefs, I made the humorous remark that yours is a more literal reading of Genesis than mine. We both believe in the value of scientific inquiry into human origins and evolution, which was not available to the authors of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. I'm not sure but I think your appreciation of modern science has similarly led you to abandon Bahá'u'lláh's criticism of the contemporary view of the evolution of humanity. With respect to the theology of the Fall, Original Sin, and the Incarnation, I like the Irenaean view that continued into the Franciscan school and became prominent among Catholic and other theologians of the 20th century, in part because of the science of evolution, but its adherents in the earlier theological tradition preferred it for additional reasons that are today still valid in my opinion.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                I thought I would respond again in more detail.

                Yes.

                I am not sure it is productive to try and account for the variations of the belief in the Trinity between the different churches except the to say they evolved from the Roman Church belief in the Trinity.
                I think it might be very productive for you, but it may require you to revise somewhat your view of the Roman origin of the Trinity and your characterization of the view as polytheism.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                It remains a version of polytheism in the Eastern Orthodox as well as the Roman Church, and later the various major divisions of the Protestant Churches.
                The various Christian theologies of the Trinity strongly affirm monotheism and fundamentally rejects polytheism. You may feel that our acceptance of monotheism and rejection of polytheism is nonsensical, but it is not correct to merely characterize Christianity or the Trinity as a version of polytheism. Would you like people to characterize your Baha'i beliefs as a version of Messianic Judaism or Christianity because you believe that Jesus was a Messiah?

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Actually, no. We define or consider 'theological reflection' differently as I remember in our previous discussion on this topic. I consider 'theological reflection' to be more individual or possibly small group contemplation, meditation, prayer to find 'personal' meaning and significance in one's relationship to the Divine, and not the human efforts to define theology and belief, such as the Trinity, which cannot be defined by human efforts. Sort of a theological Tower of Babel.

                Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFoQFjAJahUKEwiO29TGg-_HAhWEoIAKHU4pBWs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sttaustin.org%2Fdocuments%2Fyouth%2520ministry%2FTheological_Reflection_Handbook_Section_R_Dickey.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFXHqPBZdLWezN3ezPwKECMFopBfw&sig2=ntPgOvwTtR1SuqpVSgTPHA



                Guide from the Rev. Dr. Richard Dickey, 6/2006

                The term ‘theological reflection’ has come into prominence over the last thirty years in a variety of settings and serving a number of ends. It is used to denote a process in which an individual or small group reflects on their personal or collective experience(s) in light of their faith. The aim is not only to come to new understandings about the circumstances in which people live and the faith they profess, but to identify new ways of responding that validate their experience and give voice to their truth.

                To reflect theologically is an essential element in faith formation. It is a principal means of integrating faith and life. To reflect on one’s circumstances in life is as natural as breathing. It is that innate capacity and necessity that characterizes our human condition. It is that same capacity which enables us to recognize a reality greater than ourselves. To reflect on our life experiences in light of this greater reality is to reflect ‘theo-logically.’ It is to open us to the possibility of ‘knowing’ and ‘being known’ by what some call the ‘Holy Other.’ Such reflection draws us into the realm of faith. It grounds us in an unseen reality, alters our way of ‘seeing’ and shapes our responses in all of life’s relationships.

                © Copyright Original Source

                There are several issues here, eg, the role of theological reflection in some traditions in Christianity, its role in the Baha'i faith, development of doctrine, freedom of theological inquiry and discourse, the public expression of dissenting views, etc.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  I think it might be very productive for you, but it may require you to revise somewhat your view of the Roman origin of the Trinity and your characterization of the view as polytheism.

                  The various Christian theologies of the Trinity strongly affirm monotheism and fundamentally rejects polytheism. You may feel that our acceptance of monotheism and rejection of polytheism is nonsensical, but it is not correct to merely characterize Christianity or the Trinity as a version of polytheism.
                  The claim or assertion of Monotheism does not make it so.

                  Would you like people to characterize your Baha'i beliefs as a version of Messianic Judaism or Christianity because you believe that Jesus was a Messiah?
                  No problem all Messianic religions are versions of Theistic beliefs such as, Islam, Zorastrianism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Judaism.

                  It is more productive if I do not try to 'force' define things differently than they actually are. Describng multiple "beings" or euphemistically as "Persons," with one Jesus Christ being an incarnate God, making up one God is a form of Tritheism or Polytheism.

                  I consider the Trinity to be a product of the First Council of Nicaea in ~325 AD, and not originally defined as such in scripture.

                  Like and many Christians I consider the Trinity to be a metaphysical expression of the nature of the Monotheistic God, and not three "persons" in one God, and an incarnate God Jesus Christ.

                  I believe in a pure unambiguous Monotheism as do Jews and Muslims.


                  There are several issues here, eg, the role of theological reflection in some traditions in Christianity, its role in the Baha'i faith, development of doctrine, freedom of theological inquiry and discourse, the public expression of dissenting views, etc.
                  Your use of 'theological reflection' as 'development of doctrine' does not fit any definition I can find anywhere, and per our previous discussions, this is concoction of your own and does not fit normal use.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • In my experience with The Episcopal Church (that I left for ELCA in 2004) Education for Ministry (EFM) 1993-97, Shunyadragon is correct about the CURRENT usage of the term "Theological Reflection". It is the impact UPON the individual or small group from dealing with the matter at hand, not philosophical or theological intellectualization in the derivation of high theology and related cosmology or whatever.
                    Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                    Comment


                    • I have a dog in this fight, I suppose.
                      My Mother was never a Christian, even though she took the four of us to a Methodist-Presbyterian (yikes, no match there!) Federated Church until I the oldest turned teenager and rebelled against the Westminster Confession. Her preference was always Baha'i, and indeed several of our Sunday School teachers soon converted to Baha'i. This was c. 1954.
                      Where is the "Popcorn" symbol?
                      Last edited by Adam; 09-11-2015, 11:54 AM.
                      Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        The claim or assertion of Monotheism does not make it so.
                        Nor does your claim that Christians are polytheists make it so. For example, you've said that you do not like it when people say that your claim to be a theist is not so. You insist, rightly I believe, that you are a theist. Unless there is some reason not to trust you, your expression of what your own belief is, is its own validation. If you would like to be responsible about your claim, you can easily ask Christians if they are polytheists, and they will tell you, 'No we are monotheists and absolutely reject polytheism.' Likewise, your claim that I have misrepresented Claus Westermann does not make it so, but a way exists to test your claim. But first you must say where it is that I have supposedly misrepresented Westermann and then we can easily find out if Westermann does in fact say what I think he does.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        No problem all Messianic religions are versions of Theistic beliefs such as, Islam, Zorastrianism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Judaism.
                        I am not asking if you would like the Baha'i faith to be described as a version of theistic belief or monotheism, but whether you would like to be referred to as a Messianic Jew or a Christian because you also believe that Jesus is a Messiah or a Muslim because you also believe Muhammad to be a Messiah? Their interpretation of you as a Muslim would not be correct, right? Just as those who say you are not really a theist would not be correct, right?

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        It is more productive if I do not try to 'force' define things differently than they actually are. Describng multiple "beings" or euphemistically as "Persons," with one Jesus Christ being an incarnate God, making up one God is a form of Tritheism or Polytheism.
                        That is not a correct description of what Christians believe. We do not believe that Jesus is a God, but God, and also human. We do not believe that the three persons of the Trinity are multiple beings, but of the same Being. Thomas (and others) will say that ultimately God is simple, unable to be divided, or even defined as a species within a genus.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        I consider the Trinity to be a product of the First Council of Nicaea in ~325 AD, and not originally defined as such in scripture.
                        Despite your preference for the Latin spelling, Nicaea is not in Rome. Hold on to that thought about the Trinity not being defined in scripture.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Like and many Christians I consider the Trinity to be a metaphysical expression of the nature of the Monotheistic God, and not three "persons" in one God, and an incarnate God Jesus Christ.
                        Unless you misspoke here, and you truly consider the Trinity to be a metaphysical expression of the nature of the Monotheistic God, then you concede that belief in the Trinity can in fact be a form of monotheism. It only remains to understand what is meant by Persons in the Trinity.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        I believe in a pure unambiguous Monotheism as do Jews and Muslims.
                        Good.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Your use of 'theological reflection' as 'development of doctrine' does not fit any definition I can find anywhere, and per our previous discussions, this is concoction of your own and does not fit normal use.
                        You are forgetting the part of our previous discussion where I demonstrated to you conclusively that my polyvalent use of 'theological reflection' is not at all my own concoction. I gave you multiple definitions of 'theological reflection' that are completely congruent with my own usage. At the time, we were discussing the role of women as leaders in religious institutions, eg, the Universal House of Justice, and if the Baha'i view could evolve to allow women to be part of this leadership body and if such evolution would require new revelation, as when the Mormon's received a new revelation about it now being OK to ordain people of African heritage. So, in addition to multiple definitions of theological reflection, I also gave you an example of the use of 'theological reflection' sometimes being used to justify a new practice and doctrine without needing to claim that this change was the result of revelation. Similarly, while you believed that the abolition of slavery was somehow related to a transformation of the world in some way way related to Baha'i revelation, Christians were able to come to this same conclusion without the need of new revelation. Now that we are discussing the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, I will likewise give you an example of the use of the terms 'theological reflection' in this context:
                        "[Karl Barth] does not see that the doctrine of the Trinity is the product of reflection and not a kerygma. The kerygma is the God revealed in Christ, Christ, the genuine revelation of God. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical doctrine, and this indeed not by accident but of necessity. It is the product of theological reflection upon the problem, which is raised, necessarily, by the Christian kerygma."

                        Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics: Vol. I, p. 236.

                        In fact, Barth did see that the Trinity was a matter of reflection, but let's also take a look at a Catholic proponent of this same view:
                        "The concept of the Trinity is not itself included in the fundamental revelation of faith - for example, in the Bible - but is the outcome of an extended process of faithful yet critical reflection on that revelation. The doctrine of the Trinity is the church's last word about God, the apex of its theological trajectory, the conclusion of its long pilgrimage of theological reflection. Schleiermacher was right to insist that the Trinity was der Schlußstein der christlichen Lehre, precisely because the empirical method he adopted ultimately led to this goal, even though that goal was not explicit at the beginning of his theological voyage (Glabenslehre, s§170). The doctrine of the Trinity - still less some conceptually developed form of that doctrine - simply cannot be allowed to be the foundation of dogmatic reflections, precisely because it is their outcome."

                        Alister E. McGrath, The Order of Things: Explorations in Scientific Theology, p. 199.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Adam View Post
                          In my experience with The Episcopal Church (that I left for ELCA in 2004) Education for Ministry (EFM) 1993-97, Shunyadragon is correct about the CURRENT usage of the term "Theological Reflection". It is the impact UPON the individual or small group from dealing with the matter at hand, not philosophical or theological intellectualization in the derivation of high theology and related cosmology or whatever.
                          The terms are indeed used in the individual or small group context. I would never deny that, but they are also used in the other sense. That's why I referred above to my use as polyvalent. It is not a term that needs a special definition, but merely correct and evident usage of the normal sense of the word 'theological' and the the normal sense of the word 'reflection'.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            Despite your preference for the Latin spelling, Nicaea is not in Rome. Hold on to that thought about the Trinity not being defined in scripture.
                            The Council of Nicea represents Rome.

                            Unless you misspoke here, and you truly consider the Trinity to be a metaphysical expression of the nature of the Monotheistic God, then you concede that belief in the Trinity can in fact be a form of monotheism. It only remains to understand what is meant by Persons in the Trinity.
                            Absolutely NO!!!! To consider the Trinity to ONLY a metaphysical expression of the nature of God does not equate to Christian belief in the Trinity. In this concept there are NOT three "persons" in one God. NO the Christian Trinitarian view cannot be understood as pure Monotheism. The Trinity defines God as three consubstantial distinct persons of the same substance.

                            The other problem in the Roman Church is the station and description of the Divinity of Mary.

                            You are forgetting the part of our previous discussion where I demonstrated to you conclusively that my polyvalent use of 'theological reflection' is not at all my own concoction. I gave you multiple definitions of 'theological reflection' that are completely congruent with my own usage. At the time, we were discussing the role of women as leaders in religious institutions, eg, the Universal House of Justice, and if the Baha'i view could evolve to allow women to be part of this leadership body and if such evolution would require new revelation, as when the Mormon's received a new revelation about it now being OK to ordain people of African heritage. So, in addition to multiple definitions of theological reflection, I also gave you an example of the use of 'theological reflection' sometimes being used to justify a new practice and doctrine without needing to claim that this change was the result of revelation. Similarly, while you believed that the abolition of slavery was somehow related to a transformation of the world in some way way related to Baha'i revelation, Christians were able to come to this same conclusion without the need of new revelation. Now that we are discussing the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, I will likewise give you an example of the use of the terms 'theological reflection' in this context:
                            "[Karl Barth] does not see that the doctrine of the Trinity is the product of reflection and not a kerygma. The kerygma is the God revealed in Christ, Christ, the genuine revelation of God. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical doctrine, and this indeed not by accident but of necessity. It is the product of theological reflection upon the problem, which is raised, necessarily, by the Christian kerygma."
                            Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics: Vol. I, p. 236.

                            In fact, Barth did see that the Trinity was a matter of reflection, but let's also take a look at a Catholic proponent of this same view:
                            "The concept of the Trinity is not itself included in the fundamental revelation of faith - for example, in the Bible - but is the outcome of an extended process of faithful yet critical reflection on that revelation. The doctrine of the Trinity is the church's last word about God, the apex of its theological trajectory, the conclusion of its long pilgrimage of theological reflection. Schleiermacher was right to insist that the Trinity was der Schlußstein der christlichen Lehre, precisely because the empirical method he adopted ultimately led to this goal, even though that goal was not explicit at the beginning of his theological voyage (Glabenslehre, s§170). The doctrine of the Trinity - still less some conceptually developed form of that doctrine - simply cannot be allowed to be the foundation of dogmatic reflections, precisely because it is their outcome."

                            Alister E. McGrath, The Order of Things: Explorations in Scientific Theology, p. 199.
                            I do not agree with this use of 'theological reflection.'
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-11-2015, 09:58 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              The Council of Nicea represents Rome.
                              No it does not. Rome sent a couple of representatives to Nicea, a very minimal presence.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Absolutely NO!!!! To consider the Trinity to ONLY a metaphysical expression of the nature of God does not equate to Christian belief in the Trinity. In this concept there are NOT three "persons" in one God. NO the Christian Trinitarian view cannot be understood as pure Monotheism.
                              In what sense to you refer to it as a Trinity? Three what? You may not understand the Trinity to be monotheism, but Christians certainly understand their beliefs to be monotheist.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I do not agree with this use of 'theological reflection.'
                              It matters not if you agree with these theologians' use of these words, it proves nonetheless, once again, that my usage is in no way my own concoction. This is where an intellectually responsible person concedes the point, by the way.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                No it does not. Rome sent a couple of representatives to Nicea, a very minimal presence.
                                Disagree by the facts of history. At the time Rome was a theocracy, and Constantine convened and presided over the Council.

                                In what sense to you refer to it as a Trinity? Three what? You may not understand the Trinity to be monotheism, but Christians certainly understand their beliefs to be monotheist.
                                Not all Christians understand the Trinity as Monotheism.

                                The Trinity defines God as three consubstantial distinct persons of the same substance, and yes in this concept, Jesus Christ is considered truly God. This concept would not be true in pure Monotheism.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-11-2015, 10:17 PM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X