Welcome to OO: Biblical Theology » Oneness Trinitarianism

Thu, 31 October 2013 01:46

Michael R
Messages: 20
Registered: October 2013

Junior Member

Christians, Jewish people and Muslims all claim that God is one (as stated explicitly in each of their Scriptures), but they all disagree on the nature of God. Rather than fight over the nature of God, let me propose a slightly different approach.

Step back from theology altogether for a moment. To be intellectually honest with each other, if were going to claim that God is one, it may help to start with a clear understanding of what we mean by "one." (Otherwise, when we say that God is one we really have no idea what we're talking about.)

This will not be immediately evident why I take such a seemingly trivial route, but please hear me out.

Let's answer the question: What exactly is this concept we call one? How might we define it?

If you look in the dictionary you will find that you can trace the definition from synonym to synonym and back again. The definition goes around in circles and there is no final source for the value of one. So we must consider something more firm.

Let's use mathematics, since one is primarily a numerical concept. You might try to say, "Well, one is one, of course."
1=1

Of course, one must equal itself, but this will not work as a definition. The same statement will work for anything we try to define. It is therefore meaningless as a definition. If you take any concept (x) you can use the exact same expression to describe that concept: x=x. If I tell you that a thing is a thing, that will tell you nothing about what that thing actually is.

We must find an expression that distinguishes "one" as unique from all other concepts. The definition must be something more than 1=1, but it cannot be less, because one must equal itself.

Let's pose a second question: Does one exist? Of course it does. We have a way to demonstrate non-existence mathematically, so we also have a way to demonstrate existence. Any number divided by zero "does not exist" or is "undefined." So then, to bring any number into existence, it must have a denominator of 1.
If one exists, it must have a denominator of one.
1/1=1

This statement actually makes one unique, because no other number can take the same relationship with itself. (Consider n/n=1, not n) So we have a point of uniqueness for the value of one and a concrete way to identify it: It is the only number that can equal itself when divided by itself. That means that this expression (1/1=1) works as a basic definition for the value of one.

Now let's examine "one" in light of this definition for a moment and see what inherent properties we can find:

It is a self-contained statement of "being," because the equal sign is a form of the word "to be."

It is an eternal statement: It can never be false, meaning it has neither beginning nor end.

It is simultaneously composed of three operands, or three functional positions: Numerator, Denominator and Result. These operands perform uniquely different functions from each other, but each must exist together for either of the others to exist.

Each operand is equal in value (each 1)

Each operand is equally important: we cannot remove one and still have a valid definition for the value of one.

It is a self-existent expression, because it defined purely in terms of itself.

Now here is why I go this route:
In Deuteronomy 6:4, John 10:30 and even in the Quran (http://quran.com/4/171), God (or Allah) identifies himself with the idea of "one" in an unqualified sense. Assuming that God is telling the truth, then the concept of one must reflect God's own nature. After all, God could not use a concept to describe himself if that concept was in conflict with his nature or failed to describe him accurately. So then, the properties of "one" must be fully consistent with God's nature. Considering what we have explored regarding the meaning of "one," it is logically necessary to say that,

If A) God exists, and B) God is one, then by definition, God must be a self-existent, eternal being composed of three persons each of which are equal in value, equal in importance yet uniquely different in role and function.

Now consider: We have not actually figured out the value of one except to say that whatever it is, it is irreducible. In fact, we have just demonstrated the impossibility of knowing the actual value of one. Whatever "one" is, it is equal to itself and denominated by itself, but it decides its own value. Basically, whatever "one" is, "One will be what One will be."

Consider Exodus 3:13-14:
"Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

God said to Moses, “I will be what I will be."

Any thoughts? How do you react? Does this approach have any doctrinal error or logical fallacy that I'm not seeing? Can you think of any Scripture references that would either disqualify or substantiate this approach?

Report message to a moderator