I'm surprised that some on here claim to simultaneously believe in an omnipotent God and disbelieve in Trinitarianism, since the former requires the latter.
Let's consider it logically. Think about a non-trinitarian God. No hypostases. Can this being walk?
No, clearly it can't. The totality of itself couldn't be moved into its own creation and transported on two legs.
Can this being breathe?
Of course not. It has no lungs, and it isn't possible for something physical like air to be "where" God's core essence is.
So there are things you and I can do that such a being can't.
But now say this God has a hypostasis: a part or aspect of himself that can take quasi-independent action. This being could walk: its hypostasis could take a form with legs. This being could breathe: its hypostasis could take a form with lungs.
So if God is omnipotent, he must have such a part/aspect. Otherwise there would be possible things that he could not do.
But some such things are mutually exclusive. If His hypostasis is walking, does that mean that in that moment He doesn't have the ability to swim?
Surely it can't. So he can't be limited to just one hypostasis: his aspect able to take quasi-independent action must be able to manifest indefinitely. He must be able to have unlimited hypostases, as what He intends to do calls for.
Hence Trinitarianism. God can come manifest, and not only that but manifest in multiple ways at the same time.
To sum it up: to say that God is omnipotent is to say God is Trinitarian, as surely as to say that something is an octagon is to say that it has eight sides.
So if God exists, then Trinitarianism must be true.
Quick video demonstrating this, for anybody interested in that format: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SNn5QU-Py18
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
This is Modalism and a heresy. You are not actually Trinitarian.
I don't think the assertion that a specific label can be assigned to something counts as a refutation of the idea. Is there a specific passage in the Bible you feel contradicts anything that's been said?
>So there are things you and I can do that such a being can't.
I don't see how this disproves omnipotence. If he did these things, he would be human and thus not God. God can't lie, eat, or sleep either.
>I don't see how this disproves omnipotence.
If there's a possible action that's outside of a being's ability to do, then it isn't omnipotent. By the very definition of the word: omni potens literally means "all able".
If you use some other definition like "able to do everything it can do", even if you propose absurdly limited entities, such as one that could only scratch its ear, they would be "omnipotent"!
You can probably come up with reasons why it makes sense (I have as well), but ultimately it has to be based on faith in what the Bible says.
>God can't lie
Think about this one another way. Lying consists of saying something that is not true. But if God said something untrue, it would be a failure for something that God said to take place, which would actually be a limitation. It would be a limitation or failure, rather than any kind of accomplishment. So that's the real reason why that's not possible.
>If he did these things, he would be human and thus not God.
That logic doesn't follow, because we read in the Biblical account that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily (Colossians 2:9).
>ultimately it has to be based on faith in what the Bible says.
I'm genuinely horrified by the thought that we actually can't be sure whether this is the real world or not. So I want to know as much as possible about God that doesn't rely on observation!
It's good to know that even if we are in the depths of some fake world, we can still know God's Son through logic itself
One of the key items from the biblical description is a faith that God is all-good like it says in Hebrews 11:6.
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
- Hebrews 11:6
And of course the Bible says that God can be found and really is not far from any one of us, which I believe is true.
"That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:"
- Acts 17:27
"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
- Luke 11:9
>God can't lie
I think there's a subtle but critical factor at play here that hasn't been considered. If God has the power to speak then he has the power to lie: if he can vibrate the air such that it produces the sound "the sky is blue" then he could equally vibrate the air in such a way as to produce the sound "the sky is on fire" or any other false statement.
So it's within God's power to lie. However this is something he would never choose to use his power to do. Much as if you can drink water you have the ability to drink boiling water, but that's not something you'll choose to do.
Christianity is predicated on God being able to lie. And I’m not aware of any other religions even positing a triune hypostatic deity
The Ruler of the Armies of Heaven has myriads of Hosts.
Absolute copium by Christians to raise their prophet to god status. How can you give qualities to an indescribable and omnipotent god. Say what you want Islam but at least they don’t have the mental gymnastics to pretend their religion needs a triangle.
>How can you give qualities to an indescribable and omnipotent god
Aren't "indescribable" and "omnipotent" both qualities?
>Think about a non-trinitarian God. No hypostases. Can this being walk?
Yes, it clearly can.
>Yes, it clearly can.
It doesn't exist in a form that's capable of being transported on legs
>no hypostases means no power
What kind of brain damage does it take to believe this?
Explain in what manner such an entity could be said to walk
>be God
>omnipotent
>walk
Done.
The question was:
>in what manner
Remember: without the use of a hypostasis. My main point is that this is what such a being doing these things would have to manifest as.
I think you're having difficulty giving a specific answer to the question because there's really no way around it: anything that can be described as "God walking" will have to rely on a semi-independent extension of God being what actually does it. God's "core" isn't the sort of thing that can be transported, much less on legs.
>God has no legs or lungs.
God can have, even without the existence of a constant hypostasis with lungs.
>A hypostasis is a part or an aspect of God.
This is wrong in Christian theology and if it were right, it would imply Jesus as a part of God.
Also,
>God must be able to have unlimited hypostases, hence Trinitarianism
Non sequitur.
with legs or lungs*
>God can have, even without the existence of a constant hypostasis with lungs.
Do you have a response to what I wrote about that notion?
>This is wrong in Christian theology
Which passage in the Bible does anything I said contradict?
>it would imply Jesus as a part of God
Of course he is. He's God, but not all of God, and so a part of God by definition.
>Do you have a response to what I wrote about that notion?
I already gave it. God is omnipotent by definition and it's up to you to prove that God depends on a constant hypostasis to do these things.
>Which passage in the Bible does anything I said contradict?
Not in the Bible, in the Athanasian Creed hypostases are mentioned. The definition of a hypostasis in Christian theology is an instantiation of a nature (like, for example, a blue pencil, which has the nature of a pencil).
>Of course he is. He's God, but not all of God, and so a part of God by definition.
A part of God is not the wholeness of God. And you are violating divine simplicity by saying God has parts.
>I already gave it. God is omnipotent by definition
This response strikes me as a little bit odd. It's as if I'd said why a triangle needs three corners if it has three sides, and argued for why, but your response was "I define X as a three-sided object. It doesn't matter if it has three corners because I've defined it as three-sided."
Let's take it a step back. You say God doesn't need anything like hypostases to be able to, say, walk. So how is an immaterial, omnipresent spirit transported on two legs?
In my model it's simple: part of him takes on a form with legs. How does it happen in your model?
>in the Athanasian Creed
I reject that repulsive document. Even modern Catholicism rejects it. That creed says you can't be saved (directly and strongly it affirms this) unless you believe that for instance the Spirit proceeds from both the Son and the Father. The modern Catholic Church doesn't even believe that denying that damns you. So this creed is, in practical terms, rejected by nearly everyone.
>A part of God is not the wholeness of God
Well of course - there's part of God that Jesus is not (he's not the Father) so of course he isn't the totality of God
>And you are violating divine simplicity by saying God has parts.
So?
>Let's take it a step back. You say God doesn't need anything like hypostases to be able to, say, walk.
As I said, hypostases are instantions of the Godhood, so let's consider parts or extensions of God instead. I agree that God would need them to walk, breathe, swim etc. What I disagree with is that the existence of this part or extension of him must be constant like Jesus or the Holy Spirit.
>I reject the Athanasian Creed.
Interesting. Anyway, hypostases mean what I said they mean and, if I remember correctly, the church father Gregory Of Nyssa defines it this way, for example.
>Jesus is a part of God.
You're one of the first persons I see saying this. I'm not sure how orthodoxical this is. But interesting. It would indeed maybe more sense to me.
>I reject divine simplicity.
Interesting. I always found strange the idea of God not having parts too.
make more sense*
>I agree that God would need them to walk, breathe, swim etc.
I don't think we actually disagree then! We seem to have the same model, just different wordings for it. Which of course makes sense, since our language wasn't really designed to talk about these kinds of things. So we need a hammer but have to settle for you using a wrench and me using a screwdriver to pound these nails in, as it were.
>What I disagree with is that the existence of this part or extension of him must be constant like Jesus or the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me like the Son and Holy Spirit are specific attributes of God, and attributes He has to have, so it seems like they need to be permanent. Specifically, the Bible appears to call the Son "the power of God and the wisdom of God" in 1 Corinthians 1:24; God, of course, is never not powerful or wise, so this would mean that this part does have to be constant
But either way it seems like you could always say that God needs to always be omnipotent and so always has to have this aspect of himself that can extend and do things his "core" can't. Your position that those don't necessarily need to endure constantly might best be visualized with how the Son wasn't on Earth forever and stopped doing things like walking and breathing, going back to the Father.
>is the power of God and the wisdom of God
Ah I see, I've heard it used in religious studies in general to mean "aspect of a deity capable of quasi-independent action", but it might be better to use the term with caution since it gets used in subtly but importantly different ways in different contexts. (Like the Father wouldn't technically BE a hypostasis under that usage, rather would HAVE hypostases)
>We seem to have the same model, just different wordings for it.
I think we both disagree with most Christians then, because most of them whom I talked with said that Jesus is not a part of God. Picrel has some passages that might be interesting for you to analyze.
>It seems to me like the Son and Holy Spirit are specific attributes of God, and attributes He has to have, so it seems like they need to be permanent. Specifically, the Bible appears to call the Son "the power of God and the wisdom of God" in 1 Corinthians 1:24; God, of course, is never not powerful or wise, so this would mean that this part does have to be constant
>But either way it seems like you could always say that God needs to always be omnipotent and so always has to have this aspect of himself that can extend and do things his "core" can't. Your position that those don't necessarily need to endure constantly might best be visualized with how the Son wasn't on Earth forever and stopped doing things like walking and breathing, going back to the Father.
It seems to make sense.
>Like the Father wouldn't technically BE a hypostasis under that usage, rather would HAVE hypostases
I've never heard of this usage; I always heard it being affirmed that the Father is a hypostasis.
God's being does not contain "parts"
Can you elaborate on what you mean? Not in physical terms of course, since God isn't physical.
And even the last part is subject to change - God was physical in a very real sense when Christ was incarnate, and Christ had multiple physical parts. So God certainly can have multiple parts.
>Can you elaborate on what you mean?
The divine essence is absolutely simple and indivisible
>Not in physical terms of course, since God isn't physical.
Not in any terms
>And even the last part is subject to change - God was physical in a very real sense
Except that the human nature of Christ is not part of the divine essence
>The divine essence is absolutely simple and indivisible
I'm not convinced this statement, as written, actually truly *means* anything of relevance. Can you tell me, in practical terms, how a being similar to God would behave if it were vs. if it weren't "absolutely simple and indivisible"?
>Except that the human nature of Christ is not part of the divine essence
It sounds to me like you're essentially using the term "the divine essence" the way I use the term "the Father".
Would you say his "human nature" was part of Christ (at that time)?
Take your meds, chorizo
Chorizo is my med. Chorizo contains vitamin B12, an essential nutrient that plays a crucial role in the formation of red blood cells and the maintenance of central nervous system health. Adequate levels of vitamin B12 are associated with better memory performance and may protect against brain atrophy as we age. The high protein content in chorizo can contribute to the synthesis of neurotransmitters, which are chemicals that transmit signals in the brain. Neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin influence mood, sleep, and cognition, and having sufficient protein in your diet helps ensure your body can produce these important molecules. Chorizo is rich in iron, which is vital for cognitive function. Iron deficiency has been linked to impaired concentration, decreased intelligence, and slowed cognitive function. The spices in chorizo, such as paprika, garlic, and chili peppers, contain antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds. These substances can combat oxidative stress and inflammation in the body, which have been implicated in the development of neurodegenerative diseases.
mail me chorizo
cook me chorizo
sneak into my kitchen and put chorizo in my fridge
Multiple Bible passages support the Trinity. For example: John 1:1, John 20:28, and Revelation 1:8.
>Let's consider it logically. Think about a non-trinitarian God. No hypostases. Can this being walk?
God doesn't need to walk, and furthermore walking from one place to another is already supposing without reason that God ISNT infinite.
>Can this being breathe?
>Of course not.
God doesn't need to breathe, if God depends on nothing else as befits a proper true God then he has no need of breathing air
>So if God is omnipotent, he must have such a part/aspect. Otherwise there would be possible things that he could not do
This is ignoring the possibility that God could create the tools or means to do anything, but that God remains without those things with retaining the omnipotent capacity.
>So if God exists, then Trinitarianism must be true.
I explained why this isnt true
>God doesn't need to walk...God doesn't need to breathe
It's actually not a question of needs or wants - it's a question of abilities and potentials. As the word "omnipotent" reveals: look close at that second half of the word ;D
To be omni potent, one must have all potencies.
If you use some other definition of "omnipotent" like "able to do everything it needs to do", then even if you propose absurdly limited entities, such as one that only needed to scratch its ear and could do nothing else, they would be "omnipotent"!
>walking from one place to another is already supposing without reason that God ISNT infinite
What do you mean when you say God's infinite in this context?
>This is ignoring the possibility that God could create the tools or means to do anything
Indeed! What tool would he use to walk, and how would he use this tool?