Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerman
Anytime you try to make God two or three anythings interacting with each other as if they're distinct and separate but really aren't you have problems, be it oneness or trinitarian.
|
God's nature is complex. Within His nature there exists "somethings" (I'll just use the most ambiguous term here) that
are distinct from one another. For example, Jesus Christ died on the cross; yet God did not die. That being said, Jesus Christ is still God.
Without the complexities, this kind of a statement is inherently contradictory and must be rejected as illogical. Arianism attempts to deal with this by making Jesus Christ a lesser "god." Trinitarianism attempts to deal with it by introducing the idea of separate "Persons." That is, the "Person Jesus Christ died," and NOT the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
Yet, if Jesus really is God, how could any "Person who is God" ever die? It is at this point of wrangling with Christology and the nature of Jesus Christ (human and divine) that I think a Oneness theology offers the best hope. Nestorius may have gone a bit too far (though he appears to have consistently denied the claims of his detractors), but Oneness does offer a framework that is more workable, imho.
But, the distinctions remain. DaveC offers a very good and pithy explanation of this (above). Another route might be to look at the complexities within the human nature and compare the complexities of ourselves (in a manner of speaking) with the complexities that exist within the nature of God. Now, before we do this, it is vital that we understand that the human nature is NOT identical to the nature of God, in particular - God's eternal qualities. But the manner in which the Biblical writers dealt with the complex human nature can help to enlighten us to the ways in which they also handled the complexities of God's nature.
Threaded Mode
