He is saying that God is NOT a "being who is able to THINK and EXPRESS itself, having independent existence" as three. He is saying that God is one. That's it. If that be true, then it must be decried regarding there being 3 as God.
Or am I missing what is being said here?
As to a "person" singular, there is room for understanding, as one of the definitions of the dictionary can purely be applied to God. Yet, according to other understandings of the word "person", it is not applicable. Definitions flux. Dictionaries are constantly changing. This is indeed a problem when it comes to certain things being discussed. An older definition that is held, but is not in accordance with a newer definition is problematic, obviously. And a newer definition being applied to a discussion where an older definition is used, is equally problematic. And to top it off, we can personally have erroneous understandings of basic words of our own language. Few are exempt from this. It is good to be open to correction in these things, when others point out by the dictionary our faulty understanding of a word, and thus our erroneous usage of it, too. I've had that done for me, and no, it doesn't make sense the dictionary definition of "protestant", for example, as it only allows for there to be Catholics and everyone else is a Protestant: be they muslim or bhuddist or Moaist. Crazy, but by the dicitonary, that's the only way that word is to be used. Strictly speaking, then, most of the word is protestant. Stupid, that is. Nobody uses it that way, but there it is in the dictionary as such. Hence, for the practicality of it, the dictionary def. is errant, not fitting reality: it is severly limited in scope and hasn't escaped the narrow confines of the time era that it was employed, or in the small area of the earth that it was employed. Yet it is the definition for the english language throughout the whole earth. Dumb. And so it is with the word "persons", as applied to God. Interesting little history on that word theologically when one studies it out.
Personally, I hold to the older defintions and the inapplicability of the word "person" to God in any way, shape, or form. However, according an accepted usage of it in the dictionary, I realize that many, if not most, now apply it to God. This creates problems, and so I adapt to it and "agree" with those that use it for God, knowing that that is where they are coming from, but for my own understanding of it, according to my knowledge of God, I can't see that it is the least bit applicable to God.
This Christ also did, when He gave the parable of the talents: the dude that was given only 1 talent was rebuked, with Christ stating that the guy should have at the very least lent it our for usury. God hates usury. States that a number of times in the bible. God doens't change. So was Christ condoning usury? Not on your life. He was merely using that which was culturally accepted to convey a spiritual truth to those who were blind spiritually: they understood the sinful, carnal and worldly ways, and He used that which they understood to get the spiritual truth accross. To build doctrine on that usage is foolish. And exceedingly so. The same thing is done with the Lazarus in Abraham's bosum parable. If it wasn't spiritual serious, it would be almost humorous.
So, unless I'm off in seeing where the two of you are coming from, let's understand where the other is coming from, and drop the back and forth about it, for it won't do any good to continue it, as it creates a ficticious dichotomy that will never be resolved in such a state. That is an impossibility. As long as that side issue is mainlined, the underlying issue is left on a side track. Is that profitable to anyone? I don't think so.
For the most part I have appreciated reading the posts back and forth.... until they denegrate into useless haggling over the meaning of Words. Of which scripture warns severly, doesn't it? I like to learn from others, and would like to continue to do so. So keep the good posts coming, and if you two could lay aside this "person(s)" dispute, I look forward to more good posts that can be both edifying and challenging. Thanks.
"let the good times roll!"
PS sorry for the long post.
