Evidence for God from Science

God has revealed himself to us as the father, son and holy spirit but do you think there may be even more aspects to God's nature that we don't know about yet?
God as I understand is multi dimensional, maybe he is a octune God or more, what do you guys think, or does the Bible tell us it is triune only?

Dan

Sorry I posted in the wrong section lol.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:God has revealed himself to us as the father, son and holy spirit but do you think there may be even more aspects to God's nature that we don't know about yet?
God as I understand is multi dimensional, maybe he is a octune God or more, what do you guys think, or does the Bible tell us it is triune only?

Dan

What you have described is essentialy Modalism, that there is one God perceived through different modes or aspects as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This isn't actually Trinitarian belief, which says there are three distinct persons in the one trinue God with unique roles.

If one accepts Modalism, then it is very easy and logical I think to conceptualise more aspects or modes. But in a Trinitarian conception, it is not readily conceivable how there can be more persons. I'd encourage you to investigate this doctrine further as Modalism is considered within mainstream Christian circles to be a wrong and heretical view of God, and theologically there are great differences between a Oneness and Trinitarian understanding of God.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:God has revealed himself to us as the father, son and holy spirit but do you think there may be even more aspects to God's nature that we don't know about yet?
God as I understand is multi dimensional, maybe he is a octune God or more, what do you guys think, or does the Bible tell us it is triune only?

Dan

What you have described is essentialy Modalism, that there is one God perceived through different modes or aspects as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This isn't actually Trinitarian belief, which says there are three distinct persons in the one trinue God with unique roles.

If one accepts Modalism, then it is very easy and logical I think to conceptualise more aspects or modes. But in a Trinitarian conception, it is not readily conceivable how there can be more persons. I'd encourage you to investigate this doctrine further as Modalism is considered within mainstream Christian circles to be a wrong and heretical view of God, and theologically there are great differences between a Oneness and Trinitarian understanding of God.

Thanks Kurieuo,

I didn't think it was scriptual and it was late when I thought about this and I just got back from Bball haha, I might have to refresh my memory on trinitarian aspect of God.

Ok I have been reading up on the trinity doctrine and I have come to the conclusion that if God revealed the 3 aspects to us and that is all we need to focus on and if there were other aspects that were important he would have revealed them. Since God has not revealed any other aspects they either a) don't exist or b) are not important for us to know about and the focus should only be on the trinity.
Is that a correct way to think about the subject or am I still faulty in what I am thinking?

Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Ok I have been reading up on the trinity doctrine and I have come to the conclusion that if God revealed the 3 aspects to us and that is all we need to focus on and if there were other aspects that were important he would have revealed them. Since God has not revealed any other aspects they either a) don't exist or b) are not important for us to know about and the focus should only be on the trinity.
Is that a correct way to think about the subject or am I still faulty in what I am thinking?

Dan

Hi Dan, here are some links that might help:

• http://www.theopedia.com/Modalism
• http://carm.org/modalism
• http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-modalism.htm

The last one in particular is quite detailed.

If what we perceive is God as one person simply revealing himself in three different ways to us, then the aspects are really as limitless as we can devise or choose to look at God through. The logic even to a degree lends itself to religious pluralism in that God could have revealed Himself to each religion differently. Rather, Trinitarian doctrine is the belief that God is tri-personal, existing as three distinct persons.

To put in William Lane Craig's terms: "God is an immaterial substance or soul endowed with three sets of cognitive faculties each of which is sufficient for personhood, so that God has three centers of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will." (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5917)

Ok I am starting to understand how this thought train can be dangerous, I will read the posted articles.

Thanks Kurieuo

Ok I have a better understanding of the trinity now compared to modalism.
I can see where my thinking got faulty, i have always believed in the trinity as seperate entity's within the same God but was thinking maybe there are more entity's that are unknown but I see how I was making the jump to modalism.

I guess for myself I will never really understand the nature of God until I meet him face to face, my intellect just can wrap around this subject.


Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Ok I have a better understanding of the trinity now compared to modalism.
I can see where my thinking got faulty, i have always believed in the trinity as seperate entity's within the same God but was thinking maybe there are more entity's that are unknown but I see how I was making the jump to modalism.

I guess for myself I will never really understand the nature of God until I meet him face to face, my intellect just can wrap around this subject.


Dan

We can demarcate borders, but I don't think anyone's intellect really can comprehend.

Logically, we can make Trinitarian doctrine sound and plausible, but being so tied to the "material" it is hard to visualise what an individual "immaterial substance" might consist of, let alone a triune one. Human as we are, we very much need to visualise, but such already implies there is something material to visualise.

What is important, is that we have Scripture revealing Christ to be God, The Father to be God and Holy Spirit also God. And yet, there is but one God. Each person in the Godhead appears to be their own person with their own role and consciousness, and yet they all stand united as one in their nature. Nutting out how this could logically be is where people begin to get boggled and errors start creeping in.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Ok I have a better understanding of the trinity now compared to modalism.
I can see where my thinking got faulty, i have always believed in the trinity as seperate entity's within the same God but was thinking maybe there are more entity's that are unknown but I see how I was making the jump to modalism.

I guess for myself I will never really understand the nature of God until I meet him face to face, my intellect just can wrap around this subject.


Dan

We can demarcate borders, but I don't think anyone's intellect really can comprehend.

Logically, we can make Trinitarian doctrine sound and plausible, but being so tied to the "material" it is hard to visualise what an individual "immaterial substance" might consist of, let alone a triune one. Human as we are, we very much need to visualise, but such already implies there is something material to visualise.

What is important, is that we have Scripture revealing Christ to be God, The Father to be God and Holy Spirit also God. And yet, there is but one God. Each person in the Godhead appears to be their own person with their own role and consciousness, and yet they all stand united as one in their nature. Nutting out how this could logically be is where people begin to get boggled and errors start creeping in.

Well I guess it's like predestination vs freewill, both are true even though they are contradictory.
I can accept that I might not understand it all.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Ok I have a better understanding of the trinity now compared to modalism.
I can see where my thinking got faulty, i have always believed in the trinity as seperate entity's within the same God but was thinking maybe there are more entity's that are unknown but I see how I was making the jump to modalism.

I guess for myself I will never really understand the nature of God until I meet him face to face, my intellect just can wrap around this subject.


Dan

We can demarcate borders, but I don't think anyone's intellect really can comprehend.

Logically, we can make Trinitarian doctrine sound and plausible, but being so tied to the "material" it is hard to visualise what an individual "immaterial substance" might consist of, let alone a triune one. Human as we are, we very much need to visualise, but such already implies there is something material to visualise.

What is important, is that we have Scripture revealing Christ to be God, The Father to be God and Holy Spirit also God. And yet, there is but one God. Each person in the Godhead appears to be their own person with their own role and consciousness, and yet they all stand united as one in their nature. Nutting out how this could logically be is where people begin to get boggled and errors start creeping in.

Well I guess it's like predestination vs freewill, both are true even though they are contradictory.
I can accept that I might not understand it all.

That is why it is recorded in the bible about God...

Isaiah 46:5 NKJV "To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal And compare Me, that we should be alike?"

Isaiah 46:9 NKJV, 'Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me..."

Deut 33:26 NKJV, "There is no one like the God of Jeshurun..."

None like God, and for none to be like him, the Christian Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity substantiates the above statements as true...
-
-
-

Thanks BW

Those passages helped a lot, I have been trying I guess to bring God down to my level so I can understand him better.
I see the error I have made.

Dan

Nothing wrong with trying to understand though. Helps apologetically to defend Christianity.

Kurieuo wrote:Nothing wrong with trying to understand though. Helps apologetically to defend Christianity.

100% agreed, K.

And Daniel, don't be quick to appeal to mystery when you come to something you are having trouble with. What makes the Trinity difficult is not merely the fact that we don't have any experience with it, but more than that, the fact that the philosophical tradition in which it was developed is largely ignored by evangelicals. So we state the conclusions on the matter without taking the time to understanding how those conclusions were developed. To use a more biblical example, it would be like trying to explain why Jesus' death atoned for sins without referencing the Old Testament. Maybe you could do it, but you will have made your task very difficult!

Classical theism teaches that God is a Trinity in that, first, God is pure being itself (so, strictly, God is not a being. He is Being--subsistent existence in jargon). This is the principle, which is called the Father. In knowing Himself, the Father knows all things, since everything that either is or could be is being in some sense (being this way rather than that); thus, to know pure being (which only God is) would be to know everything, since it would be to know every way that being could be. Yet this knowledge of the self requires an internal procession; that procession is really related to the principle. That procession is called the Word or the Son. Morever, the will always wills the Good. Being is identical with Good, and thus pure being is pure good. Pure being wills Good purely, which is to say, wills itself. This, again, is an internal procession, really related to the principle. This willing is called in Scripture the Spirit of God.

The principle and the two processions, all being the Pure Act of Existence itself, all contain all perfections, and are thus all Persons. But they are not three entities, because they are all the same instance of Pure Being. Thus, the Trinity.

(Note: I've left out a lot, obviously, and for what it is worth, as a technical aside, the procession of the Holy Spirit in my explanation above follows the Orthodox view rather than the Catholic view specifically. But that gets into the filoque debate . . . just full disclosure!)

Excellent points Jac3510!
-
-
-