Ambiguity, amphiboly and contradictions (was Re: Modalist view of Jesus (for vanhoose))

Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:33:39 -0500 (00887157219, 19980210182621.AAA16248@briandea) 


> MWF 2/10    Substituting one, or two, ambiguous terms for another

ambiguous

> term doesn't clear up any of the problems of meaning.



> MWF 2/10    Now we get still ANOTHER ambiguous term? So far we have

>essence, nature, constitution, and substance.


Let me take a stab at this.  I would define "essence" negatively in the
sense that
"essence" is whatever you have that if you take it away, you no longer have
that
thing.  For example, a car has 'something' that if you took it away it
would no
longer be a car.  If you put a car under several tons of dynomite and blow
it
up you would no longer have a car (i.e. the essence is gone).  However,
what
is this essence?  If you take the motor out, you still have a car.  If you
take the
wheels off you still have a car.  So is there really an 'essence' of a car?

But assuming that you can make better sense of 'essence' than I can (many
philosophers have tried) then 'nature' is something that CAN change and
still
have that thing.  So wheels are part of the 'nature' of a car but not part
of its
'essence'.  This is merely because you can remove the wheels and still have
a car.

So what the doctrine of the trinity is saying is that there is this
'essence' of 
God which the Father, Son, Holy Spirit share but yet they are distinct. 
Sort of
like my cat shares the same 'essence' of catness that your cat does, but my
cat and your cat are different.  So the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can
share
the 'essence' of Godness but be three different persons.

However, there are serious problems if you try to really pin down what
'essence'
really is.  I already pointed this out by showing that you can't really
pinpoint what
the 'essence' of a car is for example.  So if you can't even pinpoint the
'essence'
of a car, then how can you make arguments about the 'essence' of God?