Putting the podcast and these clips together takes a ton of research and time. If you've benefited from the show, consider supporting on Patreon: patreon.com/parkers_pensees
Great vid! But this is where I think many Trinitarians try to have their cake and eat it too. They want to avoid Modalism so they affirm that the Persons are really distinct. But they also want to avoid Tritheism so they affirm that each of the Persons are identical to YHWH. Here is the problem as I see it. If the Father, Son and Spirit are really distinct then there must be something that distinguishes them from each other. Traditionally it is being unbegotten (Father), begotten (Son) and proceeding (Spirit). Let's call them U, B, and P. And it does not matter if you disagree with these specific distinctions between the Persons. If you believe that the Persons are really distinct then you are going to have something that fullfil the roles of these distinctions. So The Father = U, the Son = B, and the Spirit = P. But the Father is YHWH. So YHWH has U. The Son is YHWH. So YHWH has B. The Spirit is YHWH. So YHWH has P. So YHWH = U B P. But now the Persons are no longer identical to YHWH. Now the Father is not identical to YHWH because the Father = U but YHWH = U B P. And this is the case with the other Persons as well. So it seems to me that if we are going to say that the Persons really are distinct from each other then we can't affirm that all of the Persons are identical to YHWH. And if we are going to say that all of the Persons really are identical to YHWH then we can't affirm that the Persons are really distinct from each other. This is where I'm at right now. So I affirm that the Persons are all identical to YHWH. And I guess that makes me a Modalist. But I do appreciate him saying that there can't be three separate centers of consciousness.
There are limitations to our ability to understand the nature of light--a created reality (how can it be a wave and a particle?). The Christian position is that God is incomprehensible. Which means we can not exhaustively understand him. Our reason is a created image of God's absolute rationality. As Christians, we affirm we can know God truly but in a finite fashion. There are limits to the system of true and real information the Bible tells us. As Christians, we believe this infinite triune personal God, not because we have proven him with reason, but because he has revealed himself through his Word this way. And in fact, once the trinity is embraced as the biblical data presents it (as difficult as it is for us to model) it turns out that it solves the major philosophical problems of the history of philosophy. One of them is the problem of the one and the many. So rather than being a stumbling block to our faith, it is the key that allows the Christian worldview to claim an exclusive right to assert we are the only worldview that can account for knowledge even being possible. Also, I perceive you to be very bright and intelligent. You have come to recognize that either Aristotle's logic (grounded in a monistic conception of reality) is infallible, or it needs to be reformed along Christian (Trinitarian) lines. Maybe this can help you: frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/reforming-ontology-and-logic-in-the-light-of-the-trinity.pdf
"The Son is YHWH. So YHWH has B. The Spirit is YHWH. So YHWH has P. So YHWH = U B P. But now the Persons are no longer identical to YHWH." If YHWH was part of our created reality then your statements are true. But you are assuming a monistic/univocal view of the world that ignores the Creator/Creature distinction in Christianity. YHWH is not part of the created realm. The created realm only images aspects of YHWH. It is not identity with YHWH (that's pantheism). "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This does not work with Aristotle, as you are pointing out. Either (supposed) autonomous human (created) logic legislates what is possible, or the Bible reveals the categories of possibility. There is no middle ground. Van Til has helpfully observed that this is the error of pride and self-sufficiency that Adam (the creature; the image) fell into when he determined to not take God (his Triune Creator) at his Word. If the Trinity is denied, then you have more serious and insurmountable epistemological issues to resolve. The Christian worldview does not claim to fully understand the Trinity, but we can appeal to God, who we trust does. Anything else will result in man having to penetrate reality so that there are no mysteries. It assumes exhaustive human capacity to know all (as God knows it). But if you go there, you will be left in skepticism because you will encounter mysteries. But your worldview will not allow them, resulting in what Van Til refers to as the "rational-irrational" tension that destroys the possibility of knowledge. It turns out that once the Trinity is embraced it solves one of philosophy's most pressing issues: the problem of the one and many. How is the universe unified and diverse? Is its unity most ultimate or is its diversity more ultimate? This is not a problem for the Christians. In fact, this revealed doctrine actually allows Christianity the sole exclusive claim on the ability to substantiate the very possibility for knowledge. For in our God, unity, and diversity are both equally ultimate, therefore establishing the basis and resources to be able to make a universe (unified and diverse) that reflects him. It is not one or the other for Christians, it's both. Praise YHWH for his revealed word. "He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away." Job 5:13
UA-cam does not like links. But what you are getting at is that Aristotle's (monistic) logic is either infallible or must be reformed along Christian (Trinitarian) lines. If you search on google this I think you will be blessed. There is a free PDF of it: "REFORMING ONTOLOGY AND LOGIC IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRINITY: AN APPLICATION OF VAN TÎL'S IDEA OF ANALOGY" by Vern Poythress
Putting the podcast and these clips together takes a ton of research and time. If you've benefited from the show, consider supporting on Patreon: patreon.com/parkers_pensees
Great vid! But this is where I think many Trinitarians try to have their cake and eat it too. They want to avoid Modalism so they affirm that the Persons are really distinct. But they also want to avoid Tritheism so they affirm that each of the Persons are identical to YHWH. Here is the problem as I see it. If the Father, Son and Spirit are really distinct then there must be something that distinguishes them from each other. Traditionally it is being unbegotten (Father), begotten (Son) and proceeding (Spirit). Let's call them U, B, and P. And it does not matter if you disagree with these specific distinctions between the Persons. If you believe that the Persons are really distinct then you are going to have something that fullfil the roles of these distinctions. So The Father = U, the Son = B, and the Spirit = P. But the Father is YHWH. So YHWH has U. The Son is YHWH. So YHWH has B. The Spirit is YHWH. So YHWH has P. So YHWH = U B P. But now the Persons are no longer identical to YHWH. Now the Father is not identical to YHWH because the Father = U but YHWH = U B P. And this is the case with the other Persons as well. So it seems to me that if we are going to say that the Persons really are distinct from each other then we can't affirm that all of the Persons are identical to YHWH. And if we are going to say that all of the Persons really are identical to YHWH then we can't affirm that the Persons are really distinct from each other. This is where I'm at right now. So I affirm that the Persons are all identical to YHWH. And I guess that makes me a Modalist. But I do appreciate him saying that there can't be three separate centers of consciousness.
There are limitations to our ability to understand the nature of light--a created reality (how can it be a wave and a particle?). The Christian position is that God is incomprehensible. Which means we can not exhaustively understand him. Our reason is a created image of God's absolute rationality. As Christians, we affirm we can know God truly but in a finite fashion. There are limits to the system of true and real information the Bible tells us. As Christians, we believe this infinite triune personal God, not because we have proven him with reason, but because he has revealed himself through his Word this way. And in fact, once the trinity is embraced as the biblical data presents it (as difficult as it is for us to model) it turns out that it solves the major philosophical problems of the history of philosophy. One of them is the problem of the one and the many. So rather than being a stumbling block to our faith, it is the key that allows the Christian worldview to claim an exclusive right to assert we are the only worldview that can account for knowledge even being possible.
Also, I perceive you to be very bright and intelligent. You have come to recognize that either Aristotle's logic (grounded in a monistic conception of reality) is infallible, or it needs to be reformed along Christian (Trinitarian) lines. Maybe this can help you: frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/reforming-ontology-and-logic-in-the-light-of-the-trinity.pdf
"The Son is YHWH. So YHWH has B. The Spirit is YHWH. So YHWH has P. So YHWH = U B P. But now the Persons are no longer identical to YHWH." If YHWH was part of our created reality then your statements are true. But you are assuming a monistic/univocal view of the world that ignores the Creator/Creature distinction in Christianity. YHWH is not part of the created realm. The created realm only images aspects of YHWH. It is not identity with YHWH (that's pantheism).
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This does not work with Aristotle, as you are pointing out. Either (supposed) autonomous human (created) logic legislates what is possible, or the Bible reveals the categories of possibility. There is no middle ground. Van Til has helpfully observed that this is the error of pride and self-sufficiency that Adam (the creature; the image) fell into when he determined to not take God (his Triune Creator) at his Word.
If the Trinity is denied, then you have more serious and insurmountable epistemological issues to resolve. The Christian worldview does not claim to fully understand the Trinity, but we can appeal to God, who we trust does.
Anything else will result in man having to penetrate reality so that there are no mysteries. It assumes exhaustive human capacity to know all (as God knows it). But if you go there, you will be left in skepticism because you will encounter mysteries. But your worldview will not allow them, resulting in what Van Til refers to as the "rational-irrational" tension that destroys the possibility of knowledge.
It turns out that once the Trinity is embraced it solves one of philosophy's most pressing issues: the problem of the one and many. How is the universe unified and diverse? Is its unity most ultimate or is its diversity more ultimate? This is not a problem for the Christians. In fact, this revealed doctrine actually allows Christianity the sole exclusive claim on the ability to substantiate the very possibility for knowledge. For in our God, unity, and diversity are both equally ultimate, therefore establishing the basis and resources to be able to make a universe (unified and diverse) that reflects him. It is not one or the other for Christians, it's both. Praise YHWH for his revealed word.
"He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away." Job 5:13
frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/reforming-ontology-and-logic-in-the-light-of-the-trinity.pdf
UA-cam does not like links. But what you are getting at is that Aristotle's (monistic) logic is either infallible or must be reformed along Christian (Trinitarian) lines. If you search on google this I think you will be blessed. There is a free PDF of it:
"REFORMING ONTOLOGY AND LOGIC
IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRINITY:
AN APPLICATION OF VAN TÎL'S IDEA OF ANALOGY" by Vern Poythress
🧐