, ,

john_damascus4One of the problems for Mushtaq in his approach to the Christian Faith is that he understands neither the Church nor the way in which its understanding of doctrine has been developed under the power of the Holy Spirit.

Part of this failure to understand is his use of a word used by no Christian theologian – ‘Fatherhead’.  I, rightly, informed him there is no ‘Fatherhead’, which he promptly took as my resiling from a belief in the Trinity:

 So Thank you Madam Jessica for refusing from “Fatherhead” it is equivalent to refusing that first member of Triune God is father, it is a sign that ice of Trinity is melting.

This is what makes dialogue difficult, as the degree of misunderstanding that can produce such a response is complete.  There is a ‘Godhead’, composed of Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; but it would be absurd to write of ‘Fatherhead’, ‘Sonhead’ and Holy Spirithead’ – because ‘Godhead’ is the noun which comprehends the Three Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the nouns which delineate the Persons of the Blessed Trinity; there is no need to add the word ‘head’, and to say that is in no wise to deny the Trinity.

He asks: “What is the difference among “Substance of God” and “Godhead” and “Triune God”? The answer is ‘none’, they are all ways of describing the Trinity. It simply misrepresents me to say:

It is obvious that Triune God has characteristic of “Godhead” (but Madam Jessica’s logic tells us that Triune God has nothing to do with Godhead, since father has nothing to with Fatherhead) just like a child has characteristic of childhood.

The Triune God is the Godhead, that is why it is wrong to write (as no Christian does) of ‘Fatherhead’.

We can see the depth of Mustaq’s failure to understand in this:

Now question becomes What is difference between Substance of God and Triune God?

Again recall here St. Patrick’s example of Shamrock to find answer.
Three persons = Three leaves
One Triune God = One Shamrock
One substance = Green Chlorophyll

Therefore, Triune God (Shamrock) is made of a material / substance (Green Chlorophyll). Triune God (Shamrock) is one, but its substance (Green Chlorophyll) is equally divided into among three persons (leaves).
Therefore, with St. Patrick’s example, we can add here in Madam Jessica’s words that Although three persons have same substance, but this substance is equally divided among three persons. It is something not told by Blessed Jesus, but it is exactly result of Trinitarian Christians and St. Patrick’s example.

Since there is no difference between the ‘Substance of God’ and the ‘Triune God’ there is no question to answer. The Chlorophyl and the leaves are part of the One Shamrock – thus proving St Patrick’s point rather than Mushtaq’s.

I offered, as one of the best explanations of the Trinity I know, St Gregory Nazianzen’s XXIXth oration, and so it is disappointing to be offered the explanation that the 4th century church was ‘corrupt’ as though that were a fact. It isn’t, it is a Protestant/Muslim assertion which needs to be shown. It is equally disappointing to be offered this dismissive comment as though it were based on anything save prejudice:

As you can see, Gregory is a “Trinitarian Theologian” of 4th century. The 4th century is the century when Trinity was officially defined and theologians like Gregory established junk and stuff of philosophy based on this 3 in 1 and 1 in 3. It all certainly was missing in teachings of Prophets and Blessed Jesus to explain concept of God.

I am sorry to have to say this, but if Mushtaq would engage with the articles on this blog on the Trinity he would know that it is wrong to say that Jesus did not use Trinitarian language, or that His Church does not. To call one of the finest minds in history ‘junks and stuff of philosophy’ is shockingly philistine.

Mushtaq defends his position thus:

Since early Church fathers are not superior to Prophets and Blessed Jesus, therefore, whatever explanations gives this Trinitarian Christian of 4th century is just a proof of corruption in concept of God. Why was these doubts not removed by Blessed Jesus to elaborate concept of God (Basic requirement of salvation) himself? Answer is “Corruption in 4th Century.

Jesus spoke about Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and He founded a Church to teach what He passed on, so the short answer is that Jesus has removed the doubt, but sinful men found this hard to believe, and some still do. The errors of sinners and pagans do not avail a jot against the authority of the Church which gives us both Scripture and Trinity.

I have now dealt, thematically, with Mushtaq’s points.  If he will respond to each of these posts, then dialogue can continue; if he simply reproduces a script, that is not dialogue, and it will end there. The choice is his. But, assuredly, he will not understand the Living God until he encounters Him through the Son and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father through the Son.