Basic Problems with the Standard Christian Doctrine of God

[Hypatia]

Granted that Christians intend to worship God, the One, who is Absolute and in no way finite or limited…

Christians compromise and undermine the One on several fronts…

1. They make distinction within God between God’s nature and God’s person (i.e., between ousia and hypostasis).
2. They extend this problem by multiplying persons (hypostases) within God, claiming that God is three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. Already multiplied by these internal relations, God is then identified with something finite, namely a human being, contradicting the divine in the most crass way.

---

For the most part, the doctrine of the Trinity, which is the source of all of these problems, stands in contradiction to what Christians say about divine unity. For instance, one can read what Thomas Aquinas says on divine unity and the doctrine of creation without problems with regards to substance. But when he passes over into matters of the Trinity, which can only be known by revelation, the whole thing becomes incoherent with his previous claims (the One is divided by the “real relations” between the persons).

Yet it is particularly with the doctrine of the Incarnation, the idea that God became a human being, that strays into territory that seems decidedly pagan, insofar as something finite becomes identified as God.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

The Christian view is that God’s essence **is **Love, which by nature implies a Trinity. If God were a single Person totally alone in the Universe, how could He love, much less be love? But at the same time, the idea of multiple creators is all wrong, too. But it’s completely ideologically consistent to say that God is One, and that God is Love, which means He must be Three as well as One. I can definitely see why it’s a source of confusion, though.

 

[Hadi]

The Christian view is that God’s essence is Love, which by nature implies a Trinity. If God were a single Person totally alone in the Universe, how could He love, much less be love? But at the same time, the idea of multiple creators is all wrong, too. But it’s completely ideologically consistent to say that God is One, and that God is Love, which means He must be Three as well as One. I can definitely see why it’s a source of confusion, though.

Are suggesting that if God were a single person alone in the universe,He would be a loner ,therefore , he couldn’t love others…

please elaborate on the bold part…

 

[Eucharisted]

Muslims compromise and undermine the One on several fronts…

1. They make distinction within God between God’s essense and God’s attributes. (How can God be One, if He is divided within Himself?)
2. They extend this problem by multiplying contradictory attributes within God, claiming that God is both the Truth and the Best of Deceivers. (How can the truth deceive or be deceived?)
3. Already multiplied by these internal contradictions, God is then identified with something finite, namely a false name, contradicting the divine in the most crass way. (How can God say His Name is Allah, when in His Word He has said His Name is “YHWH”?)

---

For the most part, the teaching of Mohammed, which is the source of all of these problems, stands in contradiction to what Jews and Christians say about God’s Name. For instance, Jews and Christians both believe that God’s revealed Name is “YHWH”. (Why would God not reveal His Name to Mohammed?)

The Name of God In Judaism and In Christianity: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=336843

 

[JimG]

It is true that Christianity does make a distinction between nature and person—what God is, and who God is. Christianity has always held that there can be but one divine nature, one essence, one what.

Who God is—that is something known only through revelation, God revealing himself throughout salvation history, as YHWH, as Son, as Word, as Father, as Spirit.

The gospel of John pretty much sums up Incarnational theology in the prologue to his gospel: Echoing Genesis, he says ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ Reflecting back on his life with the Messiah, he sums up his conclusion as to Who he is—the divine Word, spoken by the Father, the Word spoken by the Father which could be nothing less than the Father, because the Father’s speaking of himself is perfect. The divine Word, possessing wholly the one divine nature, who took it upon himself as a person to assume a human nature in addition to his divine nature.

Nobody ever said that Theology is easy, and many of the human concepts we have can apply only imperfectly and analogically when speaking of God. But we do have some experience with the ideas of person and nature within ourselves. We consider ourselves one being, even though we can make a distinction between what we are (a human being) and who we are (Fred). The fact that we make this distinction does not make us two beings rather than one.

 

[Hypatia]

Nobody ever said that Theology is easy, and many of the human concepts we have can apply only imperfectly and analogically when speaking of God. But we do have some experience with the ideas of person and nature within ourselves. We consider ourselves one being, even though we can make a distinction between what we are (a human being) and who we are (Fred). The fact that we make this distinction does not make us two beings rather than one.

I have no problem with concessions to human language and the finitude of human concepts. All of our talk about God is plagued by this problem. BUT, in the case of the nature/person distinction and the multiplication of persons, Christians treat these distinctions as real.

This is markedly different, for instance, than the doctrine of Divine Names, or divine attributes. There, one might say that God is Good, Beautiful, Truth. To us Good means something different from Beautiful and True. But we simultaneously recognize that, with respect to God, despite the limitations of our concepts, the distinction between the attributes is unreal. Good, Beauty, Truth are God, and thus are strictly speaking, identical with one another without any distinction whatsoever.

So, it is not the limitation of human concepts per se that is problematic and compromises the One. It is the Christian tendency of treating multiplicity and distinction in God as if it were real.

 

[Hypatia]

The Christian view is that God’s essence **is **Love, which by nature implies a Trinity. If God were a single Person totally alone in the Universe, how could He love, much less be love? But at the same time, the idea of multiple creators is all wrong, too. But it’s completely ideologically consistent to say that God is One, and that God is Love, which means He must be Three as well as One. I can definitely see why it’s a source of confusion, though.

I am aware of what the Christian position is. There is nothing wrong, in itself, with saying God is Love. It is the Christian anthropomorphism of God that suggests that God must be self-aware (with respect to knowledge), or self-possessing (with respect to love) that is problematic. The introduction of relations undermines the idea of God. All it does is take human models of love and project them onto God; this is idolatry.

It is consistent to say God is Love and to say that God is One. What we are saying there is that the limitations which we are familiar with, the need for divisions and an object of love or knowledge (for instance), are transcended by God. But, it is not then consistent to say in some realist manner that God is three.

 

[JimG]

I have no problem with concessions to human language and the finitude of human concepts. All of our talk about God is plagued by this problem. BUT, in the case of the nature/person distinction and the multiplication of persons, Christians treat these distinctions as real.

It is true that each of the attributes of God are because of the unity of the divine essence, simply one. Attributes such as love, mercy, justice, omipotence, omnipresence, are a way of speaking in human terms of specific aspects of the divine nature which are distinct to the human mind but not in the divine reality. But personhood is neither an attribute nor a distinct entity, but an expression of one’s nature as a personal subject.

I am JimG the person, but I am also a human being. And my personhood is not a distinct entity nor an attribute of my nature, but rather an expression of my nature as a human subject. And I am one being, not two. If my one human nature was such that it could and must be expressed as two persons, that’s the way it would be.

In any case, Christians would have no reason to believe in the three persons in one God were it not for the sort of things that John said in his prologue, and the sort of things that Jesus said, i.e. “The Father and I are One.” or, “I solemnly assure you, before Abraham was, I AM.” The listeners correctly perceived that he was making himself equal to God. Their reactions varied.

 

[Hypatia]

I am JimG the person, but I am also a human being. And my personhood is not a distinct entity nor an attribute of my nature, but rather an expression of my nature as a human subject. And I am one being, not two. If my one human nature was such that it could and must be expressed as two persons, that’s the way it would be.

The reason we make a distinction between the individual existent and its nature in the case of finite things is that we recognize that the nature transcends the individual instance. The instance is not identical to the nature itself. [here is a cat, but it is not the essence of cat; here is Jim; Jim is a human; but Jim is not humanity itself, and indeed there are many other instances of human nature that have been and are actualized, and potentially will be actualized.]

This is simply not the case with God, whose existence and essence are one (to put it, and indeed this whole conversation, in very traditional language).

 

[JimG]

The reason we make a distinction between the individual existent and its nature in the case of finite things is that we recognize that the nature transcends the individual instance. The instance is not identical to the nature itself. [here is a cat, but it is not the essence of cat; here is Jim; Jim is a human; but Jim is not humanity itself, and indeed there are many other instances of human nature that have been and are actualized, and potentially will be actualized.]

This is simply not the case with God, whose existence and essence are one (to put it, and indeed this whole conversation, in very traditional language).

I agree that in God existence and essence are one. Indeed we say that God does not have existence, he IS existence, which I suppose is one reason for the divine name being “I AM.”

And we do not even believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct essences. Each of them can properly say “I AM” because each person wholly possesses the one divine essence.

Why then, believe in three Person? As I said before Christians would have no basis for this except what was revealed by the Son. My own personal thoughts on the matter is that since intellect and will–knowing and loving–are expressed perfectly by God, they are expressed so perfectly as to possesses personhood. God knows himself and speaks the Word, not through creation but through generation. Father and Son expressing love so perfectly that it is a person.

That’s good theology but it sometimes comes too close to trying to dissec the inner workings of the divine nature, which is impossible except through revelation.

 

[Reuben_J]

1. Already multiplied by these internal relations, God is then identified with something finite, namely a human being, contradicting the divine in the most crass way.

I do not see any problem with this nor can I understand why people see that as problematic. Logic and problem should not be scrutinized at how they look on paper but also to keep in mind what happened through the ages as God revealed Himself to humankind.

The Christian’s doctrine of incarnation is as logical as anything. It was as planned considering God’s history and actions with human beings.

 

[Cluny]

The basic problem with the Moslem concept of god is they don’t believe in the REAL God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[JimG]

Christians affirm that Jesus is one Person–a divine Person. By assuming a human nature through the Incarnation, he possesses both a human and a divine nature. In his divine nature, he is infinite and eternal. In his human nature, he is finite and human.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have no problem with concessions to human language and the finitude of human concepts. All of our talk about God is plagued by this problem. BUT, in the case of the nature/person distinction and the multiplication of persons, Christians treat these distinctions as real.

This is markedly different, for instance, than the doctrine of Divine Names, or divine attributes. There, one might say that God is Good, Beautiful, Truth. To us Good means something different from Beautiful and True. But we simultaneously recognize that, with respect to God, despite the limitations of our concepts, the distinction between the attributes is unreal. Good, Beauty, Truth are God, and thus are strictly speaking, identical with one another without any distinction whatsoever.

So, it is not the limitation of human concepts per se that is problematic and compromises the One. It is the Christian tendency of treating multiplicity and distinction in God as if it were real.

The Attributes are God - He is each one of His Attributes. God’s Goodness is God. God’s Wisdom is God, & so on. There is a conceptual , not a real, distinction between God & each of His Attributes: each one of is the fullness of His Essence, each one is the Three Divine Persons. The distinction of attributes is for our benefit, because our intellects function discursively & not intuitively.​

 

[Hypatia]

The Attributes are God - He is each one of His Attributes. God’s Goodness is God. God’s Wisdom is God, & so on. There is a conceptual , not a real, distinction between God & each of His Attributes: each one of is the fullness of His Essence, each one is the Three Divine Persons. The distinction of attributes is for our benefit, because our intellects function discursively & not intuitively.​

I think that is what I said.

I was trying to point out that the issue of the attributes is in a totally separate category than what Christians do with the “Persons” or with the Christian distinction between essence/person, because the attributes, which we distinguish within our discursive reason, are, ultimately, One. The persons are not. There is a real plurality there.

 

[Hypatia]

I do not see any problem with this nor can I understand why people see that as problematic. Logic and problem should not be scrutinized at how they look on paper but also to keep in mind what happened through the ages as God revealed Himself to humankind.

The Christian’s doctrine of incarnation is as logical as anything. It was as planned considering God’s history and actions with human beings.

The doctrine of the Incarnation is a straightforward contradiction because God is made subject to limitations and finitude. The idea that God is even capable of being a human person violates everything one means when they say God is the One, or Absolute, etc.

 

[DiesMikael]

The doctrine of the Incarnation is a straightforward contradiction because God is made subject to limitations and finitude. The idea that God is even capable of being a human person violates everything one means when they say God is the One, or Absolute, etc.

So you are saying God could not subject Himself to limitations and finitude?

Is that impossible for God?

How is the idea that God is NOT able to become human not making God a subject to limitations?

Or am I misunderstanding your point? Sorry if I am.

 

[Hypatia]

So you are saying God could not subject Himself to limitations and finitude?

Is that impossible for God?

How is the idea that God is NOT able to become human not making God a subject to limitations?

Or am I misunderstanding your point? Sorry if I am.

Yes that is precisely what I am saying.

As I mentioned on another thread, a classic example of this claim from the Christian philosophical tradition is that God cannot create a rock that God cannot lift. This can be found in Anselm of Canterbury for instance. Anselm is, precisely, arguing here that God cannot be limited. A God who is capable of being weak is not God at all. God is Infinite. Subjecting God to the finite in any way, violates God. God being human falls in the same category as God creating a rock that God cannot lift.

 

[DiesMikael]

Yes that is precisely what I am saying.

As I mentioned on another thread, a classic example of this claim from the Christian philosophical tradition is that God cannot create a rock that God cannot lift. This can be found in Anselm of Canterbury for instance. Anselm is, precisely, arguing here that God cannot be limited. A God who is capable of being weak is not God at all. God is Infinite. Subjecting God to the finite in any way, violates God. God being human falls in the same category as God creating a rock that God cannot lift.

Interesting, not implying anything so please don’t be offended but my priest shared with me a theory that the cause for Lucifer rising up against God was because of this "Omnipotence Paradox’’. Lucifer being offended that God himself would become man and therefore making himself "finite’’ and lower himself in that way.

Anyway,

The omnipotence Paradox is it’s not ,God cannot create a rock he Himself can’t lift’’ its a question ,Can God create a Rock…?’’

So the paradox in itself does not prove anything about the omnipotence of God as many philosophers and scholars have tried to come up with a reasonable answer.

Wittgenstein came to the conclusion that man cannot answer this question because our language is not up to the task of describing an Omnipotent being like God.

Just now, pondering this problem I thought maybe its not a question about what He can and what he can’t do more what he wants and does not want to do. So you could say: God can make a stone he does not want to lift and therefore he can’t list it because he does not want to, God not being able to "change His mind’’.

God is omnipotent because He can do what He wants and therefore He can not do what He does not want to do.

And if He wants to become human and finite and all that, well - then I see no problem with that.

…I might be wrong.

 

[DiesMikael]

Just to sum up.

You (Hypatia) said: “A God who is capable of being weak is not God at all”

But my points is: God is not restricted by the stone but by himself. Therefore he is not weak in comparison with the stone, he is not weak at all.