Well, I guess "the Church" is wrong. So you apparently agree that there are three persons? Is each of these persons divine or not? What better word can you come up with to describe a divine person than "God"? Show me in the Bible where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit "enjoy ontological unity." They enjoy functional unity, but not ontological unity.
Since you continue to pick that nit, please show me from scripture that they enjoy "functional" unity (whatever that means).
But leave that for a moment as I actually answer your question. The bible (only one source for Christians on doctrine, by the way, not the only one, but we'll leave that aside for the moment) says that there is one and only one God, and that God is unique. There are none other like him:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.
Deuteronomy 6:4
Israel has taken this verse in two senses. First, it means that Israel was to "sanctify God in their hearts" by following no other God besides YHWH. They were to worship no other god. Second, it means that there is in fact only one God. God is (in the language of later philosophers) ontologically unique. This idea gets further expression later in scripture:
For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the Lord, and there is no other. I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek me in chaos.’ I the Lord speak the truth, I declare what is right."
Isaiah 45:18-19 (emphasis mine)
And even more clearly (God is speaking throughout):
To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, as though we were alike? Those who lavish gold from the purse, and weigh out silver in the scales—they hire a goldsmith, who makes it into a god; then they fall down and worship! They lift it to their shoulders, they carry it, they set it in its place, and it stands there; it cannot move from its place. If one cries out to it, it does not answer or save anyone from trouble.
Remember this and consider, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfil my intention’, calling a bird of prey from the east, the man for my purpose from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have planned, and I will do it.
Isaiah 46:5-11 (emphasis mine)
So clearly, God is utterly unique. He created all other things, and there are no beings like him. Note, the passage does not say "There are no others" or "there is no one like us", which might hint that God is somehow ontologically plural. And as we all know, Judaism strongly and unequivocally affirms the oneness of God. And so does the (authentic) Church.
When the Church (and the bible, which is simply part of church tradition, anyway) speaks of "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit" as God, she is not saying that now there are three divine beings. No, the church maintains its connection to its Jewish roots in part by continuing to affirm a strict monotheism. But to talk about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the church introduced a technical term,
person. When the church uses the term
person, she is careful not to "divide the substance." Now, when we use the word person in normal conversation, we associate it with other individuals, separate from ourselves. This is not the sense in which the church uses the word, and that may be part of the confusion for you. Remember that it's a technical term designed to bring out the relations within the trinitarian conception of God, but that those relations do not imply independent existence or, in the language of philosophers, "separate substances."
Well some Christians do. FYI, Mormons also use the word "God" to denote a particular being. Are you saying that "God" is God's name? It's a title, but it's a title reserved exclusively for a particular being.
Of course, the word "God" can have many uses. Sometimes it's used as if it were a name. At other times, it's used as if it were a title. So long as we are agreed that the word "God" applies correctly only to one singular being, we have no dispute, but then this whole discussion becomes confusing. Why are we even having it? Obviously, there is a problem of reference that we're working out.
I disagree. The Father is not the Son. They are distinct beings whose unity is perfect and absolute. They are all "God." There is nowhere in the Bible where God is referred to as an "undivided substance."
Okay, that's it. The bible affirms that the Father is not the Son, yet they are NOT distinct beings. They do not "divide the substance." They share the same "essence." The passages I showed you earlier from Isaiah affirm that God is an undivided substance, although it does so in much more beautifully poetic language than what ancient philosophers used. They say such things as that there is no other than God. Greeks tend to use more precise, philosophical language, and so to say the same thing, they say that God is an "undivided substance."
"The" Church teaches... "Christians" believe... This is getting tiresome, Dunemeister. There is not just "a" Church and not all "Christians" agree on all doctrines. Your subtle insults are not appreciated.
I wasn't intending to insult anyone. I'll use "religious communities that trace their ancestry to the apostles" and "people who belong to religious communities that trace their ancestry to the apostles" if that's better.
