Post #22
Nature and persons of the Trinity - Part 2
So for any entities x and y, if a and b are the same thing, then any property P, P is true of a if and only if P is true of b. If a is the Son and b is the Father, then if Oneness is true, a must be identical to b. On the other hand, if something is true of the Son (a) which is not true of the Father(b), then the Son(a) is not identical to the Father(b) and Oneness if false.
But we have seen that there are things true of the Son(a) which are not true of the Father(b) and there are things true of the Spirit(c) which are not true of either the Father(b) or the Son(a).
For example, anything true of
1. John Doe uncle (JDu) must be true of
2. John Doe husband (JDh) and
3. John Doe brother (JDb).
• That is to say, it can *NOT* be the case that JDu is married to Jane Doe, while JDh is not.
• It can *NOT* be the case that JDh sang on stage in Vegas in February 1980 while JDb did not.
• So to recap - Whatever is true of JDu, as a person, must be true of JDh and JDb if they are all the same person.
Certainly it is true that the relationships that make u, h, and b distinct are different, but the *person* to which these titles apply must possess all the same properties regardless of in what role he is functioning (that is, whether brother, husband, or uncle). That is, everything that is true of John Doe who is the uncle of Steve Smith(Nephew) is true of the John Doe who is married to Jane Doe and who is the brother of Samuel Doe.
So for anti trinitarians to be correct about God, there *must be nothing true of one "mode" which is not true of another "mode"*. But if there is just one thing true of one which is not true of another, then *they cannot be the same person* and modalism is false.
An trinitarian must defy common sense that shows when the Bible speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that the Bible is in fact not speaking of three persons but one. That is to say, they must show that a plain reading of the text clearly does not show three distinct persons, even though we have numerous verses that indicate communication and relationship between persons, such as when Jesus prayed to his Father and the Holy Spirit descended upon him. In other words, since the common sense plain reading of the text shows three distinct persons, the burden of proof is without a doubt on the anti-trinitarian to show that the common sense plain reading is false. The Trinitarian does not have the burden of proof.
Consider the following:
(1) Jesus of Nazareth is called the one and only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). This would mean that God the Son has a property - mediatorship - which is possessed by neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit, since the text is saying he is the ONLY mediator "between" God and man.
(2) "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'" (Matt. 3:16-17).
The Son has the property of "being the Son loved by the Father" but not the property of "being the Father who loves the Son." The Spirit has neither property. Thus, we have in this verse a clear distinction between the persons of the Trinity.
(3) "`No one knows, however, when that day and hour will come - neither the angels in heaven nor the Son; the Father alone knows.'" (Matt. 24:36). Here the Son has a property (not knowing the day or hour of his second coming) which the Father does not.
Imagine if I said, "Only John Doe as an uncle knows what he's getting from his wife for Christmas. John Doe as a brother does not know what he's getting from his wife for Christmas." You would have to infer from this that there must two John Doe's. If not, then it is logically incoherent.
Follow the Way
Post #22
Nature and persons of the Trinity - Part 2
So for any entities x and y, if a and b are the same thing, then any property P, P is true of a if and only if P is true of b. If a is the Son and b is the Father, then if Oneness is true, a must be identical to b. On the other hand, if something is true of the Son (a) which is not true of the Father(b), then the Son(a) is not identical to the Father(b) and Oneness if false.
But we have seen that there are things true of the Son(a) which are not true of the Father(b) and there are things true of the Spirit(c) which are not true of either the Father(b) or the Son(a).
For example, anything true of
1. John Doe uncle (JDu) must be true of
2. John Doe husband (JDh) and
3. John Doe brother (JDb).
• That is to say, it can *NOT* be the case that JDu is married to Jane Doe, while JDh is not.
• It can *NOT* be the case that JDh sang on stage in Vegas in February 1980 while JDb did not.
• So to recap - Whatever is true of JDu, as a person, must be true of JDh and JDb if they are all the same person.
Certainly it is true that the relationships that make u, h, and b distinct are different, but the *person* to which these titles apply must possess all the same properties regardless of in what role he is functioning (that is, whether brother, husband, or uncle). That is, everything that is true of John Doe who is the uncle of Steve Smith(Nephew) is true of the John Doe who is married to Jane Doe and who is the brother of Samuel Doe.
So for anti trinitarians to be correct about God, there *must be nothing true of one "mode" which is not true of another "mode"*. But if there is just one thing true of one which is not true of another, then *they cannot be the same person* and modalism is false.
An trinitarian must defy common sense that shows when the Bible speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that the Bible is in fact not speaking of three persons but one. That is to say, they must show that a plain reading of the text clearly does not show three distinct persons, even though we have numerous verses that indicate communication and relationship between persons, such as when Jesus prayed to his Father and the Holy Spirit descended upon him. In other words, since the common sense plain reading of the text shows three distinct persons, the burden of proof is without a doubt on the anti-trinitarian to show that the common sense plain reading is false. The Trinitarian does not have the burden of proof.
Consider the following:
(1) Jesus of Nazareth is called the one and only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). This would mean that God the Son has a property - mediatorship - which is possessed by neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit, since the text is saying he is the ONLY mediator "between" God and man.
(2) "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'" (Matt. 3:16-17).
The Son has the property of "being the Son loved by the Father" but not the property of "being the Father who loves the Son." The Spirit has neither property. Thus, we have in this verse a clear distinction between the persons of the Trinity.
(3) "`No one knows, however, when that day and hour will come - neither the angels in heaven nor the Son; the Father alone knows.'" (Matt. 24:36). Here the Son has a property (not knowing the day or hour of his second coming) which the Father does not.
Imagine if I said, "Only John Doe as an uncle knows what he's getting from his wife for Christmas. John Doe as a brother does not know what he's getting from his wife for Christmas." You would have to infer from this that there must two John Doe's. If not, then it is logically incoherent.
1 year ago (edited) | [YT] | 3