The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Videoclip explaining Trinity, endorsed by Robin Parry

I found it helpful & shared it on Facebook, where Robin described it as:

And another friend, who is a senior minister, said it was:

Update: Just noticed Robin shared it on his blog too :sunglasses:

Did anyone elseā€™s video seem chopped off on the last two or three inches to the right? :confused:

Note: a number of pagan beliefs did have a modalist idea of ultimate divinity (three modes of operation which appear to be different persons, like maiden mother crone.)

Anyway, I agree thatā€™s a good relatively simple overview. Iā€™d want to emphasize some important variations, but that would be an inter-trinitarian dispute. For example, I see the author skipped over the filioque dispute (does the Spirit also proceed from the Son or not); but he didnā€™t deny it either, he just didnā€™t talk about it ā€“ that might be in another video. Ditto the question of privative vs. positive aseity (which is connected to the filioque dispute).

If a divine being is uncaused, and Jesus is God, yet Jesus is caused by the Father, then isnā€™t there a contradiction? Or should people be more specific and careful when describing God as necessary?

How can each person of the trinity be fully God, if fully God means being 3 persons?

When I talk to myself, I bring into being another person who listens and responds to my inner conversation. Mysteriously, this other person is also me, yet I bring it into being, and not vice versa.

Thatā€™s an issue with it being embedded here - you can right click on it & copy the URL so you can watch it in YouTube.

Good attempt at an analogy, Allan, but wouldnā€™t that make Jesus simply a figment of the Fatherā€™s imagination?

I find the trinity very problematic. But I find not subscribing divinity to Jesus even more problematic. I have no solutions, but the trinity seems ā€¦ awkward.

I donā€™t recall any other videos Iā€™ve seen posted here being cut off like that to the right. :confused:

(Not that Iā€™m suspecting any foul play, itā€™s just a weird technical thing I hadnā€™t noticed before.)

Heh, I see the video is down this morning, maybe someone is fixing that. :wink:

But this is the dispute between positive aseity (something is actively self-causing, not caused by anything else) and privative aseity (something is uncaused not even self-caused). Greco-Roman philosophy was more about the latter; Judeo-Christian theism was more about the former.

When Christian theologians started trying to work out theology in accord with the philosophical standards of their day, as part of their evangelical efforts, their respect for the philosophers naturally led them to go with the latter rather than the former, but that led to increasing schisms in how the Persons related to one another (even among theologians trying to keep both the single ultimate divinity and the distinction of the Persons), and naturally also led various reverent theologians trying to fix things by disregarding the distinction between the Persons altogether (modalism) or by denying in various ways that one or more of the Persons was really God Most High (Jesus was really only a Platonic dyad for example), or by proposing multiple distinct Gods Most High after all (which the vast majority of disputants on any side were hot to avoid).

Put more simply, a merely uncaused Independent Fact doesnā€™t intrinsically act as the ground of all existence; but if the ground of all existence doesnā€™t intrinsically act, then atheism is true instead! ā€“ and probably the kind of atheism where everything is an illusion and doesnā€™t really exist after all despite non-existent people somehow being misled by their non-existent senses into thinking they and other things actually exist. :wink: (Some major world religions and philosophies went that direction instead, too, some of which predate Christianity.)

If rational intentional action is the ground of all existence instead, i.e. if theism instead of atheism is true, then the one and only independent fact of all reality must be actively and intentionally self-existent as the ground of all existence, including as the eternally never-ending and never-beginning ground of Godā€™s own existence.

And when we say that something generates something that is substantially the same kind of thing the generator is, and if the generator is living (which God would be), then we say something begets something.

But in this case weā€™re talking about the one single ground of all existence ā€“ there cannot be two or three or more distinctly existent independently existent facts, much less one distinct fact generated by another distinct fact where each is exactly the same kind of things and so both ought to be the one and only self-generating ground of all existence (not two completely distinct facts existing within a common overarching reality ā€“ because then the common overarching reality is the real IF and we havenā€™t been talking about that yet after all).

So, the one and only God Most High, the single independently existent ground of whatever is real, would be actively self-begetting and actively self-begotten. Nothing exists ā€˜next toā€™ God ontologically, nothing exists ā€˜aboveā€™ God ontologically (using spatial metaphors to try to get across the idea).

I think there are some reasons to believe that God self-begetting and God self-begotten can be usefully described as real distinctly identifiable Persons in a personal relationship with each other, which involves Godā€™s ever-ongoing self-generation (and that the first action of God distinct from being self-begetting would be for the self-begetting and self-begotten Persons to generate a Person which is also God Most High so that the Father and the Son can give themselves and also the gift of God Who is not themselves to each other, God proceeding from the Father and from the Son, the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son but one distinct Spirit of God proceeding from the self-begetting union)ā€¦ {inhale!}

ā€¦but even if the multiplicity of the Persons of the one God is rejected, God still ought to be regarded as inherently actively self-existent. And certainly those of us who hold to binitarian or trinitarian theism (where the one and only God Most High has multiple real Persons) should not try to propose that God exists merely uncaused: that builds in a necessary schism between the Persons from the outset and leads to all kinds of problems later.

One problem being that such a God has no inherent reason to act toward the fulfillment of fair-togetherness among all interpersonal relationships; whereas an eternally active interpersonal relationship of fair-togetherness between Persons as the one and only ultimate ground of all reality would have the best possible reason to act toward the fulfillment of fair-togetherness among all persons: because to act otherwise would be to act against the intentional action that grounds and actively generates all reality!

Thus my argument that if trinitarian or even only binitarian theism is true, some variety of universal salvation from sin must also be true. On the other hand I still have yet to see any principle attempt at explaining or even claiming some kind of non-universalism that doesnā€™t eventually deny trinitarian theism in some way. The Son has to convince the Father to try to save sinners into righteousness, or the existence of human spirits doesnā€™t really have anything to inherently to do with the action of God, or there are multiple distinct ontologies for human spirits as some Calvinists in one of the recent anti-universalism threads have been arguing. :unamused: Or when non-universalism turns out to involve denials of trinitarian doctrines, then suddenly trinitarian doctrines are useless and vain philosophy and merely speculation. http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/headbash.gif

Jesus Christ ā€“ if someone who professes trinitarian theism is willing to throw it under the bus in order to try to save some kind of non-universalism from incoherency, then STOP BEING A TRINITARIAN THEIST!!!

The doctrinal set isnā€™t supposed to be some kind of mere badge to distinguish one group from another, but thatā€™s how people have learned to treat it. Oh Iā€™m a trinitarian theist, unlike those mere pagans over there, so Iā€™m a real Christian, butā€¦ what, it makes no sense to deny Godā€™s omnipresence while Iā€™m supposed to be affirming Godā€™s omnipresence? Bah, we are supposed to avoid mere philosophical speculation and profess Jesus Christ and him crucified instead and thatā€™s all Iā€™m going to do, you can blather on about the relationship of the Father and the Son to creation all you want, thatā€™s only human reasoning, Iā€™m better than that, etc. etc. etc. No of course those other people who profess Jesus Christ and him crucified arenā€™t Christians, they arenā€™t trinitarian theists like I am! How dare you suggest they might be Christians, too, while they deny even one doctrine of trinitarian theism! If they donā€™t repent and become trinitarian Christians theyā€™ll be cast out of Godā€™s presence and eternally separated from God! Why would God have anything but a passing desire to save them instead, or choose to save them in the first place, thatā€™s just human sentimentality talking not the primary fundamental justice of Godā€™s wrath and punishment and annihilative destruction! What do you mean that makes less than no sense in the unity of Godā€™s relationship between the Persons?!ā€“what has that useless philosophical speculation got to do with anything!?

(I canā€™t find my animated gif for a smiley barfing up a drink that he then licks up and barfs again, so please accept this St. Peter analogy instead:)


Is it meaningful to say that someone has caused their own existence? Uncaused I can maybe get my head around, as in a brute fact, but existential self-causation? I just donā€™t compute ā€¦ :frowning:

Iā€™m not sure the trinity makes sense. But I donā€™t think a non-divine Jesus makes sense either. Oh dear ā€¦

If it isnā€™t meaningful to say that self-existence continually acts to cause its own existence, then theism itself isnā€™t meaningful.

When weā€™re talking about fundamental reality (the ultimate and independent fact, that which sheerly and always exists), weā€™re going to run into some unique properties of the IF as the IF, properties nothing else could possibly have, no matter what we decide is true about the IF, because at best other things can only approach being like the IF.

If the IF is intrinsically active then theism is true, but then the IFā€™s self-existence is intrinsically active: active self-existence.

If the IF is not intrinsically active then atheism is true. But then our own existence as active agents (which we must presume in order to make any argument as such) makes no sense, even as derivative agents. From nothing comes nothing ā€“ and sooner or later any atheism either tries to get something from nothing or denies the existence of everything.

By continual self-existence I donā€™t mean God causing Himself to exist from non-existence, so in that sense Iā€™m not talking about God having caused Himself to exist.

There is, as you noted, a difference between causing oneself to pop into existence and the ability to maintain oneself in existence. I guess one could argue that even I do that when I continue to eat and breathe :slight_smile:

So, as far as the causation of God is concerned, it seems trivial to say He keeps Himself in existence. But it seems substantial to say that He is uncaused. Either way, describing God as self-caused just seems to muddy the issue.

It seems to me that God (the Father) has uncaused existence, that He is the ultimate brute fact underlying all other brute facts and the source of all explanations (He is the ultimate explanation). Additionally, He also maintains His own existence.

The difficulty, as far trinity is concerned, is that if divinity is tied to either being brute, uncaused or self-caused, then only the Father has true divinity, since if the Father ceased to maintain His own existence the Son and Spirit could not maintain their own existences without Him. This seems to imply a less than co-equal form of omnipotence.

The trinity has, in my opinion, many difficulties I canā€™t get my head around. Not that I abandon the divinity of Christ, I simply acknowledge that I havenā€™t got a clue. Iā€™m not sure the trinity is the correct solution to the divinity of Jesus, but neither am I sure that itā€™s not.

The self with whom I have inner conversations isnā€™t simply a figment of my imagination. Heā€™s as much me as I am. Heā€™s every bit as smart as I am. He shares all my memories. His will and my will are one and the same, yet, quite mysteriously, we can share very meaningful conversation.

In order to be self-conscious, I must be able to contemplate an image of myself that is identical to myself in every way that counts. Both the Observer and the Observation are me, fully me, and one me.

God is self-conscious. God the Father is the Observer; Christ (the perfect image) is the Observation. Both are God, fully God, and One God.

"And Philip said, ā€œShow us the Father, and we will be satisfied.ā€ And Jesus replied, ā€œDonā€™t you know me, Philip?ā€

From a mystical viewpoint, Iā€™ll concede your point Allan :slight_smile:. But from a non-mystical view, would you say that your inner self has access to and can relate to you factual information that you have not accessed by means of your normal conscious self? And can your inner self construct an argument that you would disagree with?

Iā€™m not sure that it makes sense to talk of self and inner-self as two differing persons (a la trinity).

But youā€™re still dependent for your existence on that which is not yourself, not only for your origin from not previously existing, but for your continuing existence. You contribute actively to your continuing existence, to a small (if important) degree, but you donā€™t actually maintain yourself in existence self-existently, and certainly not with no beginning and no ending.

Eternally active self-existence is only trivial if you think of it as being nothing more than making sure you eat and breathe something else after youā€™ve come into existence, i.e. if you think of it as something less than eternally active self-existence. :wink:

Certainly it would also be substantial to say that He is uncaused ā€“ substantially that would mean intentional action is only accidental (in the philosophical sense) to ultimate reality, which one way or another amounts to atheism.

Consider the difference between saying that God does love, and saying that God is love. Or perhaps better, consider what the difference would be between saying that God does wrath, and saying that God is wrath. (A lot of non-universalistic theology, though not every kind, turns out to depend on the idea that God is essentially wrath somehow, not merely does wrath. Except that such proponents rarely bother to spell that out explicitly. :unamused: )

If ultimate reality only produces intentional action, instead of being intentional action, then thatā€™s a very huge difference in philosophy. Atheists believe ultimate reality only produces intentional action (if it produces intentional action at all); it doesnā€™t take much for them to realize that if they affirmed that ultimate reality essentially is intentional action then they would be theists of some kind not atheists.

But if ultimate reality, the one and only independently existent reality, essentially is intentional behavior, action (in the philosophical sense) instead of non-action or unintentional automatic blind unpurposeful reaction and counter-reaction, then the Independent Fact must actively self-exist. Thatā€™s eternal self-causation, never beginning to self-cause, never ending.

Putting it shortly (and borrowing a figure of speech): God cannot simply be a ā€˜bruteā€™ fact, because God would then be nothing more or other than a brute. At best. Any behavior at all, not merely brute behavior (mere reaction and counterreaction), would be inexplicable, if God fundamentally didnā€™t behave at all and so didnā€™t even behave in a brute fashion. But only brute behaviors would be explicable if God was essentially brute behavior. Except if only brute behaviors existed our rational behavior would either not really exist or be fundamentally at odds with ultimate reality. But then so much for any theory of ours about the characteristics of ultimate reality.

But at the level of Godā€™s own self-existence, He cannot merely ā€œadditionallyā€ maintain His own existence: He cannot first exist uncaused and then also actively keep Himself in existence. If God actively maintains God in existence, thatā€™s eternally active self-existence (and not merely a ā€œbrutelyā€ uncaused fact.) Which is eternally self-causing existence: God is eternally actively self-begetting and self-begotten, and not first one and then the other, but simultaneously. (This may imply something like an infinitely fast perpetual motion dynamo except the behavior is rationally active, and so God may have His own infinite eternal ā€˜timeā€™ by the standard of any natural space/time continuum, but there are some major differences between Godā€™s time and derivatively natural time.)

God self-begotten is still the one and only God Most High, even if God self-begotten is a person distinct in relation to God self-begetting; but on the other hand if God self-begotten is a distinct person compared to God self-begetting, then God self-begotten would be constantly acting to point back to God self-begetting and from the perspective of an authoritative hierarchy would regard the Father as the ā€œonly true Godā€ and ā€œmy Godā€ ā€“ while still making claims of ultimate divinity Himself where appropriate.

Whether God self-begotten is a distinct person in relation to God self-begetting, is a whole other question of course.

I donā€™t think, in regard to the Persons, the Father directly maintains His own existence, which is one reason why considering the Father as statically existent (instead of actively so) has seemed proper to many people. But if the Son rebels against the Father, or tries to do anything other than surrender back to the Father or to act in cooperative intention with the Father (which is the same thing at the level of Godā€™s self-existence), that would break the active unity of Godā€™s self-existence (in a positive aseity theology of course) and the Father would not be able to maintain His own existence. Similarly if the Father abandons the Son or in some way refuses to support the Son.

The scriptural doctrine (most obvious in GosJohn) that the Father gives all things to the Son and the Son gives back all things to the Father (also notably present in that central portion of 1 Cor 15), isnā€™t in itself an idea exclusively possible only in trinitarian (or even binitarian) theism; but the notion does have a special importance unique to *-nitarian theism if positive asiety is true, because that action would be an enaction of Godā€™s own unity of self-existence.

Anyway, no one ever said the Trinity was an easy doctrine ā€“ or if they did, theyā€™re either lying for promotional (or oppositional) reasons, or they donā€™t know what theyā€™re talking about. :wink: So please donā€™t feel bad, or more importantly donā€™t think I think you ought to feel bad, if the difficulty makes for difficulty believing it. I never blame anyone for not believing it due to difficulties of any kind.

The only people I ever blame for not believing it, are people who insistently say they believe it it but then also insist (not merely by accident) in turning around and denying one or more points of it in order to promote something else. :wink: Those people are in a position to know better, but are refusing to do so. Iā€™d even say theyā€™re principally in the same position as the Pharisees of the unforgivable sin incident, who are willing to contradict their own principles in order to oppose someone else. :angry:

Sorry, Jason, but I really canā€™t see how a being can cause itself to exist eternally, nor does it appear to me that Godā€™s existence and nature being set brutes (they simply are, and are their own explanation) is an incoherent proposition. That God is a person with the capability to make intentional actions seems to be a brute fact - there are no more why questions to answer, He is and that is all.

Iā€™m also a little confused about what youā€™re saying regarding the Son - are you saying that the Son causes the Fatherā€™s existence as much as the Father causes the Sonā€™s?

Could it be a sign indicating that the doctrine of the Trinity isnā€™t quite right? :laughing: