Read on Twitter
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...
Second response to @AbdelbarrM on the coherence of Trinitarian theology:
[THREAD] https://twitter.com/AbdelbarrM/status/1288344009732227080
Second response to @AbdelbarrM on the coherence of Trinitarian theology:
[THREAD] https://twitter.com/AbdelbarrM/status/1288344009732227080
Abdelbarr laments that I corrected him on "there being 3 persons but not 1" since Trinitarian theology states that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God and yet there's one God, supposedly the doctrine is open to misunderstandings like there being one person.
When the "Athanasian" Creed (which isn't even dogmatic to me as Orthodox but I'm willing to humor it) states that the "F is God, S is God, HS is God but there's not three gods but one God" it's talking about the divine essence. All three possess the same divine essence.
I appealed to the analogy of hands because Abdelbarr himself raised this point with his robot analogy. I simply corrected it. Yes, a man and his two hands are in fact considered one person, lol.
Abdelbarr said that if we say both the Father and the Son are contingent neither can be God as God is independent. I don't disagree. I don't agree with the premise that there's contingency in the Godhead in the first place.
My point was to show that IF we ascribe contingency to the Son we also ascribe it to the Father, but we don't. The Trinitarian relations have both an aspect of mutuality and asymmetry. Since God is immutable, it is impossible for the divine relations to change.
The Father's identity is essentially defined by Him having an only-begotten Son who is His exact Image and exactly like Him except begotten whereas the Father is unbegotten. Everything the Father has also belongs to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
Similarly, the Son's identity is essentially defined by His relationship to the Father as His only-begotten Son and Word. In Trinitarian theology God literally cannot exist without being Triune.
That was my point, the relations within the Godhead define God's being immutably.
That was my point, the relations within the Godhead define God's being immutably.
Abdelbarr thinks that eternal generation somehow would mean that the Father is "independent" of the Son.
False.
The divine subsistences are inseparable and absolutely united both in essence AND operation. It is impossible to conceive of the Father as independent of the Son.
False.
The divine subsistences are inseparable and absolutely united both in essence AND operation. It is impossible to conceive of the Father as independent of the Son.
An example common in the Fathers is how the light and heat of a fire is inseparable from the fire itself. They constitute its essential being, that which makes it fire. You can't separate them, just as with God. What makes God, God in our paradigm are the Trinitarian relations.
Abdelbarr makes the fatal mistake of comparing human relations to the divine. Saying a human father isn't "contingent" on his son (again bearing I mind I reject contingency in the Trinity) isn't the same as the Godhead because of unity of essence and nature and operation.
Everything the Father wills or does, the Son and the Spirit will and do likewise, - the will is one - NECESSARILY and absolutely. It is impossible for the divine subsistences to act independently of one another due to absolute unity. Hence the human comparison is meaningless.
He says that " A father can't linguistically be called a father unless he existed prior to his begotten son who emerged from him and is contingent on him to exist" which again compares the human to divine.
Firstly, God the Father begets the Son necessarily and eternally.
Firstly, God the Father begets the Son necessarily and eternally.
It is true that Fatherhood/Sonship are defined by relations but for one we don't believe the begetting of the Son is like human sonship. We also do not believe this is a temporal act but outside time and space, and is infact not an ACT at all but something NATURAL in the Trinity.
God the Father is called the Father because God the Son (and God the Holy Spirit) is "from Him" as "Light from Light, true God from true God" (Nicene Creed). The Son is His Image and the radiance of His glory, the exact representation of His subsistence.
Abdelbarr missed my point on the torches. It wasn't to illustrate Trinitarian relations but that contingency does not mean that x has a lesser power or quality than y just because it's derived. All three are equally fire and burn you just as much! Contingency is meaningless here.
To add to this, do we consider human sons "less human" because they are born after their fathers? If so, does this not lead us to infinite regress until we reach Adam, who's some superhuman in comparison to us? Of course not. We are just as human as Adam and so with the Trinity.
Abdelbarr says the Bible supports his idea of the Son and the Spirit "working under the Father's command".
The problem with that is all we ever see in the Bible is the economy of salvation in which the Son becomes a man and yes, obedient to the Father (as any man would be).
The problem with that is all we ever see in the Bible is the economy of salvation in which the Son becomes a man and yes, obedient to the Father (as any man would be).
Firstly, I thought we were discussing the logic of the Trinity, not biblical exegesis? Abdelbarr should stay on topic if he wants to be systematic.
That said, I'm happy to discuss interpretation of the Bible.
That said, I'm happy to discuss interpretation of the Bible.
Secondly, it's clear that the Son works on His own volition as well as being obedient to the Father in the incarnation. For example St Paul says that the Son "made Himself" of no reputation by taking on a human form (Philippians 2:7) & Christ says He dies VOLUNTARILY (John 10:17)
Abdelbarr refers to Church History as being "predominantly subordinationist" before Nicea. This is debatable. It is true that there was a subordinationist current in 3rd century thought as represented by Tertullian for example, but 2nd century Christianity is not as explicit.
For example, St Irenaeus says that the Father rules over all WITH the Word and the Spirit (Against Heresies 4.1.1) He never says that the Father rules over the Son or that the Son is a lesser god or anything of the sort.
In fact Irenaeus says that the Son is "truly man and truly God" (AH 4.6.7) and is "God of the living with the Father who appeared to the patriarchs" (AH 4.5.2) and that Jesus is "absolutely God and Lord
...Mighty God coming on the clouds" (AH 3.19.2).
...Mighty God coming on the clouds" (AH 3.19.2).
In addition, Irenaeus says in "Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching" that "that which is begotten of God is God" (paragraph 47). Irenaeus' Triadology is significantly more "Nicene" than certain 3rd century apologists who were more driven by philosophical presuppositions.
Secondly, it is expected that as language developed the relations were articulated more clearly. But ALL of Ante-Nicene Fathers starting at Clement of Rome believed Jesus was the God of the OT who became a man at the end of time. The essence of Trinitarianism was preserved.
Abdelbarr says that the idea of of ontological equality and functional subordination is incoherent.
My reply is simple, prove it.
If a General volunteers to serve another General (like deliver a message) to gain something, that's certainly not incoherent in the least.
My reply is simple, prove it.
If a General volunteers to serve another General (like deliver a message) to gain something, that's certainly not incoherent in the least.
The onus lays on Abdelbarr to show it is incoherent to say one can be ontologically equal but subordinate in function to another. I think it's very coherent and can give copious examples. I can even reverse it, like father getting something for his son, etc.
It is the function of the Word of God to reveal the invisible Father, being His image and Word. Therefore He is sent by the Father to reveal Him, both in the Old Testament as the Messenger of the Lord who's both God and His Messenger (cf. Genesis 16) and became human as Jesus.
In a paper published in 2004 on 1st and 2nd century Triadology, Michael Swigel concludes that the overwhelming tradition is in fact ONTOLOGICAL EQUALITY and FUNCTIONAL SUBORDINATION, confirming continuity with Nicene Trinitarian theology:
Abdelbarr misrepresented my argument on father and son having the same essence. I agree that HUMAN fathers can choose to beget their sons, but such is not with God. The reason the Son doesn't exist by the will of the Father is because that would mean the Father Himself changes.
Because God is immutable, He is always Father to the Son. This means the Son must exist forever with the Father, and the unity of essence and operation proves the Trinity is one God as the same applies to the Spirit.
Abdelbarr makes the amazing claim that just because two share the same essence it doesn't make them equal.
Tell me, if someone shares the ESSENCE and BEING of God, what else is He EXCEPT GOD? You just proved the Son is God with the Father.
Tell me, if someone shares the ESSENCE and BEING of God, what else is He EXCEPT GOD? You just proved the Son is God with the Father.
No, a king and a servant aren't equal in function but both are EQUALLY HUMAN. This is my entire point on essential equality and functional subordination, although in the Godhead it's not King and servant but one King and Ruler of all fulfilling His plan in trihypostatic union.
Abdelbarr somehow made the claim that by saying our hands are part of us, they are our attributes. That's ridiculous. Hands are body parts, not attributes. Attributes are things like seeing, hearing, knowing.
He also says the Word and Spirit are attributes of the Father. False.
He also says the Word and Spirit are attributes of the Father. False.
The subsistences are NOT attributes any more than our hands are attributes. @AbdelbarrM takes the analogy too far. My point was that a man's hand is part of him. The divine subsistences possess attributes but are not attributes.
Us saying the Son is the Wisdom and Power of the Father doesn't mean He is an attribute. It shows He is consubstantial with the Father and constitutes that which makes the Father a Father of the Son whose Word He is.
One scriptural evidence of this is Hebrews 1:3 which states the Son upholds the universe by the word of His power. Sustaining the creation is a divine ATTRIBUTE. The Son Himself therefore is not an attribute but a subsistence (ie. He has a real existence).
Abdelbarr asks if our hands pray to us or have an "independent will". Neither apply to the Godhead as the Son doesn't have an independent will nor prays until He becomes incarnate. His will is the same as that of the Father's.
Abdelbarr asks where in Scripture it is stated that God is a Trinity. We don't do theology based on single verses but a consistent and a holistic reading of the Bible. For an overview of biblical witness for the Trinity, see here: https://irr.org/biblical-basis-of-doctrine-of-trinity
When I said that the Trinity is is 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 I wasn't referring to logic but a basic mathematical formula.
On the incarnation, Abdelbarr says that God changed since the Son took on a human nature and thus after the incarnation He now has two natures. But this is not a change IN GOD. No Christian believes the Son's divinity turned into humanity or humanity was mixed with the divine.
The two natures of Christ are inseparable but distinct, not mixing. As the Troparion of St Justinian says, God the Word"became a man WITHOUT UNDERGOING CHANGE". This is basic Christology. The Trinity is not at all affected by the incarnation.
What the incarnation accomplished was the salvation of man and the uniting of the divine with the human, but this is not a change within God since the human nature does not mix with the divine in Christ.
Finally, Abdelbarr says that "the Trinity did not exist anywhere in the first 300 yrs of Christianity". This is just patently false and easily disproved. Even a cursory look at the writings of St Ignatius, (d. 107) St Polycarp (d. 155), Irenaeus (d. 202), etc show this as false.
I hope Abdelbarr actually starts to do some research on church history and Christian (specifically Orthodox) theology and understand that he has to learn a position before he critiques it.
In conclusion, I felt I've wasted much more energy than his arguments deserve, but I'm doing it for the sake of my brothers and sisters in Christ who may struggle with these issues. It is important we learn our theology properly.
Glory to the undivided and consubstantial Trinity, now and to all eternity 
