{"id":840,"date":"2012-04-19T08:36:25","date_gmt":"2012-04-19T12:36:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=840"},"modified":"2012-04-19T12:50:32","modified_gmt":"2012-04-19T16:50:32","slug":"sabellianism-reconsidered-considered-part-6-dale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/sabellianism-reconsidered-considered-part-6-dale\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Sabellianism Reconsidered&#8221; Considered &#8211; Part 6 (Dale)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><object width=\"420\" height=\"315\" classid=\"clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" codebase=\"http:\/\/download.macromedia.com\/pub\/shockwave\/cabs\/flash\/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\"><param name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\" \/><param name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\" \/><param name=\"src\" value=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/v\/Wt35Tdj3hoI?version=3&amp;hl=en_US\" \/><param name=\"allowfullscreen\" value=\"true\" \/><embed width=\"420\" height=\"315\" type=\"application\/x-shockwave-flash\" src=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/v\/Wt35Tdj3hoI?version=3&amp;hl=en_US\" allowFullScreen=\"true\" allowscriptaccess=\"always\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" \/><\/object><\/p>\n<div>\n<p><small><em>Switchfoot &#8220;are one&#8221;. But they are really just five dudes, not one.<\/em><\/small><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Baber observes,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>Typically, aggregates of Fs are not themselves Fs.<\/strong> A collection of cats is not itself a cat&#8230; an aggregation of persons is not a person. (p. 7, emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Still, she thinks this needn&#8217;t preclude three gods from themselves being a god. <strong>Some sorts of things, it seems, can have other things of that same sort for parts<\/strong>, such as<a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sierpinski_triangle\" target=\"_blank\"> a Sierpinski Triangle<\/a>. (p. 10) Maybe, then, gods are more like triangles like cats, in that groups of god can be (temporal) parts of a god. At least, we can&#8217;t rule out that this is possible.<\/p>\n<p><strong>How many temporal parts does God, on this theory have?<\/strong> There&#8217;s no reason to think it is exactly three. <!--more-->Why not a part at each second of time? Why not a part lasting, e.g. for the year 412 CE? How many temporal parts, each of which is a god, are we talking about? Evidently, more than billions, not merely three. But, Baber, says, not all of these part will count as persons of the Trinity.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8230;at any given time, we count Gods by occurrent stages [i.e. by how many God-stages exist at that time]. And there is no reason why some individuals that figure in [God&#8217;s] history should not count as Persons while others do not. (p. 8)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Thus, she concludes that her fourth requirement has been met &#8211; that the Trinity, the threesome of divine Persons &#8220;is God&#8221;. (pp. 8,\u00a0 2) She concludes that the &#8220;Sabellian&#8221; theory we&#8217;ve outlined in <a title=\"Sabellianism Reconsidered series\" href=\"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?s=%22Sabellianism+Reconsidered%22+Considered&amp;searchsubmit=\" target=\"_blank\">this series<\/a> is &#8220;a minimally decent doctrine of the Trinity.&#8221; (p.11)<\/p>\n<p><em>Next time: theological objections.<\/em><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"zemanta-pixie-img\" src=\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/pixy.gif?x-id=4a5caaad-1ba2-8f63-bf6b-fe8bac514c1d\" alt=\"\" \/><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Switchfoot &#8220;are one&#8221;. But they are really just five dudes, not one. Baber observes, Typically, aggregates of Fs are not themselves Fs. A collection of cats is not itself a cat&#8230; an aggregation of persons is not a person. (p. 7, emphasis added) Still, she thinks this needn&#8217;t preclude three gods from themselves being a&hellip;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/sabellianism-reconsidered-considered-part-6-dale\/\" rel=\"bookmark\">Read More &raquo;<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">&#8220;Sabellianism Reconsidered&#8221; Considered &#8211; Part 6 (Dale)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5,38,9,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-modalism","category-monotheism","category-philosophy","category-theologians"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=840"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/840\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3745,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/840\/revisions\/3745"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}