Monday, December 15, 2008

TRINITY

Let's talk about the Egg. Not only is the egg used as the maker of a good omelet, it is often used as a way to understand the difficult doctrine of the Triune God, or Trinity. It is an attempt to wrap our minds around an idea that really makes no sense. Let's break this egg idea down a bit. The egg yolk, sitting comfortably within the egg white surrounded securely by the hard shell makes an egg. It is said that this is like the Trinity because it is three parts, yet still one egg. This unfortunately breaks down, and therefore goes to prove that the idea of three in one is not a possibility. If there is a shell lying on the counter, left over from using both the yolk and the egg white to make a batch of cookies, would one look at that shell and refer to it as an egg? I don't think so. It is merely a shell, a part from both the yolk and the egg white it is not an egg at all, it is just a shell. The same is true with each of the three parts, apart from one another they are no longer an egg. How can it be then that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father are all one God when they are all separate entities? Jesus prays to the Father. Jesus is subject to the Fathers will. The Bible tells us the Holy Spirit pleads on our behalf to the Father. It is impossible, therefore, for three clearly separate beings to be one single God. Just as a shell apart from the yolk and the white is not an egg, it is merely a shell. I conjecture, therefore, that the monotheistic viewpoint of Christianity is simply impossible. Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father are separate gods with separate character traits and responsibilities.

Apart from the clear illogic of a triune God let's look at the contextual argument as well. It is a well known accepted fact that this word "Trinity" appears nowhere in the Bible. If the doctrine of the Trinity is so important to the Christian faith then why doesn't God come out and speak about it directly? Why doesn't he ever use the word Trinity or explain the concept of a triune God explicitly. I understand the theory can be cobbled together from various verses plucked from obscure and otherwise unrelated passages within the Bible, but such a seemingly important doctrine shouldn't need such a wild goose chase. The doctrine of Grace is made abundantly clear as are the doctrines of original sin, the fallen-ness of man and many others I could continue to list. These are all clearly important doctrines and are made abundantly clear. Yet, the Trinity is suspiciously not. Thus, either God does not ultimately place the same importance on this doctrine as he does the others, or his explanations are simply arbitrary; either God doesn't care about the doctrine of the trinity, or the scripture is not actually divinely inspired.

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Omnificence

I'm sitting here trying here trying to figure out what to say about God's omnificence. I don't want to say the wrong thing. Even the right thing said in the wrong manner may inadvertently distort the truth of this marvelous trait. How can the full impact of this divine attribute be conveyed with mere language? Can our finite minds truly begin to fathom the depths of God's creative power? The stars are limited in brilliance; even the sun. Grains of sand are numerically limited. Our understanding is limited. But God's creativity is not. Webster says that omnificent means to be "unlimited in creative power". Often times, official sounding explanations of various words found in sources such as Webster's Dictionary, the Encyclopedia Britannica, or (especially) Wikipedia fall short of a full expression. I'm wrestling with words and ideas. I'm struggling with how to creatively fill the void between Webster and reality. God wouldn't struggle. He wouldn't wrestle with words and ideas like I do. He wouldn't need to.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

The best way I know how to describe God's unlimited creativity is by contrasting His creativity with our own limited creativity. He is able to create ex nihilo which means "out of nothing". We require external resources for our creations to come into existence. We can only manipulate and transform preexisting materials. He is not bound by this limitation. Similar to God, we can make things that do not exist although we are required to use raw materials. For God, raw materials are optional. We can't speak or will our ideas into being as God does. If I want to bake a cake I need flour, sugar, and heat. Singing is similar to how God speaks things into being however unlike God we require relatively crude vocal cords and sound waves. We probably can't even have creative thoughts without our brains. God created everything that exists from nothingness. He didn't even require time.

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. Colossians 1:16

Not only is time not necessary for God to create, it is almost unfathomable for us to consider that God actually created time itself. Time, the human soul and mind, and gravity are all examples of things that exist yet do not have physical existence. God is not limited to physical creations. Just because I can't see something doesn't mean it is not there. I'm absolutely certain that when the psalmist wrote, "Create in me a pure heart, O God" (Psalm 51:10) he didn't mean, "make me a heart that is not part esophagus". The psalmist was clearly referring to something other than the lump of cardiac muscle tissue residing in his chest cavity; something invisible perhaps?


“You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.” Revelation 4:11

Saturday, November 22, 2008

HELP ME!!!

Is the celebration of Thanksgiving an act of Idolatry if participated in by Christians? Speaking of Holidays, what about christmas trees? Isn't having a christmas tree an implicit sanction of a pagan practice? Aren't we called to be "set apart?" Where should we draw a line? Should we as christians draw a line? Are there any scriptures which inform these areas? HELP ME!!!

Friday, November 14, 2008

Can God Learn?

Can God Learn?


The word omniscience, is not a word of the Bible. In fact, that word is not, strictly speaking, a biblical term. It means to see or know all things, and has been a theological doctrine based on supposed biblical evidence.

But is this true? If you know everything, and there's nothing that you do NOT know, then are you able to learn? Can God obtain knowledge that He doesn't have?

If so, then I would argue that God has 2 things that He is incapable of: He cannot sin, for that would disqualify Him from the position of being God. He also, based on any belief that he is omniscient, would be unable to learn. Can God teach Himself? Impossible! If He can, then it would imply that there is something He does not know, and therefore he would cease to be omniscient, or all-knowing.

Because God is supposedly all-knowing, why does he get angry? There are many instances in scripture where it says that "the anger of the Lord burned against them". What would make Him angry? He is all-knowing. He knew that we would sin and disobey Him before we were born. Before the creation of the world. He's not surprised, if He's omniscient. We get angry when our expectations are not met. For instance, if I expect my friend to give me a high-five, and instead they smack me in the face, that would probably make me angry. I was expecting one thing and I got something different. That's a surprise. But God is not surprised, because He knows everything. So if that is the case, is there anything we can do wrong that would NOT meet God's expectations? After all, He knew we'd do it anyways.