Read on Twitter
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...
Response on the Trinity and logical coherence:
[THREAD] https://twitter.com/AbdelbarrM/status/1288132183488684034
Response on the Trinity and logical coherence:
[THREAD] https://twitter.com/AbdelbarrM/status/1288132183488684034
The basic definition given by @AbdelbarrM is fine. I would just modify it to state that the Trinity is also one God as there is a single operation of the Godhead.
Abdelbarr makes an absolute BLUNDER by stating that the Trinity is "not three persons but one person". This is ridiculous and would be enough to self-refute the whole thread as he has absolutely butchered and misrepresented Trinitarian theology in his ignorance. Nevertheless...
The Son is not contingent on the Father anymore than the Father is contingent on the Son. There is no Son without the Father and no Father without the Son.
Secondly, contingency is an act of will. Creation is a contingent act because creation exists by the will of God.
Secondly, contingency is an act of will. Creation is a contingent act because creation exists by the will of God.
The begetting of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit however are natural and necessary relations. They don't emerge by the will of the Father unlike the creation but naturally. This does not make them lesser and they form the Necessary Being with the Father.
Second, even for the sake of argument, saying x is contingent on y doesn't make y any lesser.
Let's say I have three torches and I use the first to light up the others. Would anyone in his right mind say that the other torches are somehow "less fire"? Of course not.
Let's say I have three torches and I use the first to light up the others. Would anyone in his right mind say that the other torches are somehow "less fire"? Of course not.
Abdelbarr states multiple times that we believe in multiple gods, even when articulating Trinitarian theology. This is obviously pure ignorance as we don't multiply the divine essence nor give adoration to multiple essences. The single divine essence is shown in three hypostases.
The Son and the Spirit do not work under the command of the Father. The entire Trinity works as one indivisibly and as one Godhead. This is known as the doctrine of inseparable operations, articulated both by the Cappadocians and St Didymus the Blind among many others.
That said, Abdelbarr severely misunderstands co-equality in Nicene terminology. We don't believe there's no taxis (ordering) in the Godhead. The co-equality of the subsistences refers to the divinity and glory all three possess equally with one adoration.
This doesn't mean that the Word and the Spirit cannot be economically "subordinate" to the Father. The idea of ontological equality and functional subordination is perfectly coherent and does not violate essential co-equality.
We believe the Father is the Origin of the Son and the Spirit. This does not make Him any greater in essence to the Son and the Spirit, anymore than a human father is superior in essence to his son.
Abdelbarr gives an analogy of the robot. I would modify it and just use a human although God is perfect and above analogy.
The arm of a human is part of us and is us in a sense. It's of one substance to us. The Word and Spirit are called the Hands of the Father; one in essence.
The arm of a human is part of us and is us in a sense. It's of one substance to us. The Word and Spirit are called the Hands of the Father; one in essence.
There is no created analogy for God, just like there is no created analogy for Allah even according to the Quran itself (Q 42:11, 112:4 etc). All we can do is illustrate faintly the divine glory and majesty of God adored as Trinity in unity.
The point of the robot/human analogy is to show how something that's intrinsically part of us can also be distinct. It's not meant to be an exact analogy.
I'm glad Abdelbarr affirms humans share a singular essence. This helps prove our case of consubstantiality. As stated earlier, the single essence is complemented by the singular and perfect operation of the Godhead. There's a SINGLE operation, not three in unity but the same one.
Since both the essence and operation are one, the Trinity is in fact one God, not three gods. Therefore the argument that 3 humans # the Godhead fails because human operations are necessarily separate and not one.
Christians don't believe the Trinity is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. We don't count gods but subsistences who share the SAME DIVINITY, ie. are the same God.
Therefore the more accurate formula is
1 x 1 x 1 = 1
Therefore the more accurate formula is
1 x 1 x 1 = 1
Again, equality does not mean that there couldn't be a form of ranking. Obviously we believe the Trinity has one will, but three, each divine subsistence works to fulfill the one divine will. In the economy of salvation this is seen as the incarnation of the Son and Pentecost.
The rest of the thread is focused on weak Protestant analogies which no knowledgeable Christian would even attempt.
Overall, very weak attempt and extremely sloppy at discussing Christian theology.
The All-Holy Trinity knows best.
The All-Holy Trinity knows best.
I should also add that the divine relations are not equivocal to human relations. They're faintly analogous to explain consubstantiality, and shouldn't be taken too rigidly and literally.
