A person but not a being?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Ah, and THAT is where you nail them. Only a being in and of himself can be a father, a son or have any sort of relationship with another. You show them they have thus made the relationship between the Father and Son disingenuous.

Actually, that is the approach they take with us. They say our Father and Son are not Persons, and therefore cannot have genuine filial relationship, and thus our Father and Son are merely God pretending to be a Father and a Son, with no genuine love, relationship, etc.

They on the other hand maintain that person is separable from being, therefore one being can be three persons. Further, all the relationships you describe are proper to person, not being, so they will say the Father is a real Father and the Son a real Son, they love one another, Father genuinely begets Son, etc, and yet there are not three beings, but one being. Because "being" in trinitarian terms refers to "essence" and "person" refers to the individual existence. Being = what, and person = who. What's do not love, only who's love, have relationship, etc. Therefore, they will say your argument involves category errors and equivocation, plus a straw man as to what trinitarianism actually claims.

You are using the term being in it's common usage, that is, a PERSON, an individual existence of a rational ESSENCE or "nature". Thus, you speak of "A being". Whereas in trinitarianism the word being refers to essence, nature, underlying qualities that define the "what" that belongs to the person, which is a who or an individual instance of a rational nature or essence. God, unlike humans and all other rational beings, can exist in three persons or as three distinct instances of the Divine Nature simultaneously, and yet still be One Being (one Divine essence or nature).

Of course, they do equivocate somewhat on the term "being" when speaking of God as "a being" or as "the supreme being" because when they say such things they clearly use being in the common sense usage because they are not speaking of His "being" as a non-personal essence separable from the persons.

So I do not think your argument will hold any merit with any trinitarian who even remotely knows his doctrine.

Go on over to CARM or any other trinitarian discussion board and see how well your approach works.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Actually, that is the approach they take with us. They say our Father and Son are not Persons, and therefore cannot have genuine filial relationship, and thus our Father and Son are merely God pretending to be a Father and a Son, with no genuine love, relationship, etc.

We do believe a divine being is in oneness with a human being. Only we can affirm that the Father-Son relationship was real, and among beings, though it transcended at Christ's ascension/exaltation.

They on the other hand maintain that person is separable from being, therefore one being can be three persons. Further, all the relationships you describe are proper to person, not being, so they will say the Father is a real Father and the Son a real Son, they love one another, Father genuinely begets Son, etc, and yet there are not three beings, but one being. Because "being" in trinitarian terms refers to "essence" and "person" refers to the individual existence. Being = what, and person = who. What's do not love, only who's love, have relationship, etc. Therefore, they will say your argument involves category errors and equivocation, plus a straw man as to what trinitarianism actually claims.

It does not matter what they say. There is no definition of "person" that matched their absurd definition. Furthermore, one cannot be a person capable of a relationship with another and not be a being. Nor can an intelligent being (human or divine) not be a person, by definition. Thus, they are trapped either way.

You are using the term being in it's common usage, that is, a PERSON, an individual existence of a rational ESSENCE or "nature". Thus, you speak of "A being". Whereas in trinitarianism the word being refers to essence, nature, underlying qualities that define the "what" that belongs to the person, which is a who or an individual instance of a rational nature or essence. God, unlike humans and all other rational beings, can exist in three persons or as three distinct instances of the Divine Nature simultaneously, and yet still be One Being (one Divine essence or nature).

I see trinitarians split on this. But what you cite in the last paragraph still works against them. An essence cannot be a being, by definition. When pressed, they always admit that God is a rationale being (singular). Certainly some say "one what, three who's", but that works against them even more. Only a rational being can be a "who.


Of course, they do equivocate somewhat on the term "being" when speaking of God as "a being" or as "the supreme being" because when they say such things they clearly use being in the common sense usage because they are not speaking of His "being" as a non-personal essence separable from the persons.


I had one tell me tonight that the persons draw their existence from the being. But if they are not persons in their own right, then they are not persons at all an are incapable of being a son or father.

So I do not think your argument will hold any merit with any trinitarian who even remotely knows his doctrine.

I'm wearing them out on WWGS

Go on over to CARM or any other trinitarian discussion board and see how well your approach works.



CARM says that God is not God without all of his persons. I have used this to my advantage as well. One person dying to reconcile us to another person leaves us unreconciled to "God", who is not God without all of his persons. The withering assaults have caused many to take the "We will never figure God out" escape-hatch. Not surprisingly, many will not answer the simple question as to how can anyone but a being be a son or father. They will not give an answer.

[Originalist]

So my point is this....

If a trinitarian refers to the persons of the trinity as "beings", we must educate him on how he violates trinitarian orthodoxy, and is labeled a tritheist by trinitarians. Don't personally attack him as a tritheist.

Now at this point he will either want to change his view to affirm trinitarian orthodoxy, or he will defend his view. If he continues to insist that the persons of the trinity are "beings", then stress to him the definition of "being" (self aware, intelligent entity), and how three divine "beings" by default , constitute three deities or gods.

If he changes to affirm trinitarian orthodoxy, or if you are already in dialog with an orthodox trinitarian who holds to their traditional "non-being" definition of "person", then explain to him how the orthodox view of "person" as it relates to the persons in the trinity, eliminates the possibility of a genuine Father-Son relationship while Christ was on earth. If a person is not a being, then he cannot be a Father or Son as only self-aware, intelligent entities can hold those titles. Their definition of "person" makes the persons of the trinity nothing more than hand puppets of the one God. Again, let them rant about what "person" means. It works against them. The method I've prescribed seals off all escape routes.


Of course they are most likely operating under the erroneous assumption that the oneness view denies that the Son had any real identity of his own, or that he had a genuine relationship with God. But here is your chance to explain that our view is the ONLY view that affirms the deity of Christ, yet affirms that human being had a genuine relationship with his Father.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So my point is this....

If a trinitarian refers to the persons of the trinity as "beings", we must educate him on how he violates trinitarian orthodoxy, and is labeled a tritheist by trinitarians. Don't personally attack him as a tritheist.

Now at this point he will either want to change his view to affirm trinitarian orthodoxy, or he will defend his view. If he continues to insist that the persons of the trinity are "beings", then stress to him the definition of "being" (self aware, intelligent entity), and how three divine "beings" by default , constitute three deities or gods.

If he changes to affirm trinitarian orthodoxy, or if you are already in dialog with an orthodox trinitarian who holds to their traditional "non-being" definition of "person", then explain to him how the orthodox view of "person" as it relates to the persons in the trinity, eliminates the possibility of a genuine Father-Son relationship while Christ was on earth. If a person is not a being, then he cannot be a Father or Son as only self-aware, intelligent entities can hold those titles. Their definition of "person" makes the persons of the trinity nothing more than hand puppets of the one God. Again, let them rant about what "person" means. It works against them. The method I've prescribed seals off all escape routes.


Of course they are most likely operating under the erroneous assumption that the oneness view denies that the Son had any real identity of his own, or that he had a genuine relationship with God. But here is your chance to explain that our view is the ONLY view that affirms the deity of Christ, yet affirms that human being had a genuine relationship with his Father.

Problem is that many Oneness Pentecostals can not explain the Oneness of view of the Godhead any better than Trinitarians can explain the Triune view of the Godhead.

But of course you know this you have been in both camps.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Problem is that many Oneness Pentecostals can not explain the Oneness of view of the Godhead any better than Trinitarians can explain the Triune view of the Godhead.

But of course you know this you have been in both camps.

Trinitarians believe in three separate persons. They have no struggle with it at all. It is also the most basic form of understanding Christendom has. From the most illiterate to the greatest genius in the church. They see a god squad, of three separate person, beings, digits, because they are all Roman Catholics. Every single one of them. They are as Trinitarian as the Pope. They were all taught by the Pope, whether directly, or inadvertently through one of the many Catholic offshoots. A One God Pentecostal on the other hand is trying so very hard to get away from the threeism of the Catholic monster. So, much in fact that they shy away from certain terms and ideas. Seeing a Trinitarian church just the gateway to Hellraiser 4.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So my point is this....

If a trinitarian refers to the persons of the trinity as "beings", we must educate him on how he violates trinitarian orthodoxy, and is labeled a tritheist by trinitarians.

I have never, in 25 + years, had a trinitarian refer to the persons as beings. I have been consistently told there is ONE being, one what, and three whos.

I have, however, regularly argued that the persons ARE beings, and the ONLY reason they say they aren't is to avoid recognizing the tritheism inherent in their doctrine.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So my point is this....

If a trinitarian refers to the persons of the trinity as "beings", we must educate him on how he violates trinitarian orthodoxy, and is labeled a tritheist by trinitarians. Don't personally attack him as a tritheist.

Now at this point he will either want to change his view to affirm trinitarian orthodoxy, or he will defend his view. If he continues to insist that the persons of the trinity are "beings", then stress to him the definition of "being" (self aware, intelligent entity), and how three divine "beings" by default , constitute three deities or gods.

If he changes to affirm trinitarian orthodoxy, or if you are already in dialog with an orthodox trinitarian who holds to their traditional "non-being" definition of "person", then explain to him how the orthodox view of "person" as it relates to the persons in the trinity, eliminates the possibility of a genuine Father-Son relationship while Christ was on earth. If a person is not a being, then he cannot be a Father or Son as only self-aware, intelligent entities can hold those titles. Their definition of "person" makes the persons of the trinity nothing more than hand puppets of the one God. Again, let them rant about what "person" means. It works against them. The method I've prescribed seals off all escape routes.


Of course they are most likely operating under the erroneous assumption that the oneness view denies that the Son had any real identity of his own, or that he had a genuine relationship with God. But here is your chance to explain that our view is the ONLY view that affirms the deity of Christ, yet affirms that human being had a genuine relationship with his Father.

Now explain how Oneness does not affirm two beings, one divine and one human, thus making Christ two beings. TheLayman will appreciate it.