I am just putting this out there as a question. Would you say that the following is a good understanding of a Triune God?
We are looking for unity in diversity. I suggest that there is only one explanation for unity in diversity, and that is in the doctrine of the trinity, where right from the beginning, there was unity, diversity, community in the trinity, and that’s the principle you and I need to adhere to.
Related Post:
This is a trick question, isn’t it? I refuse to answer until I have more information.
Well… the dictionary meaning for diversity is:
1. the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2. variety; multiformity.
3. a point of difference.
I was hoping you’d tell me where the quote was from, but I guess if I say, “First tell me who said that quote,” it would be kind of like an evolutionist dating the fossils by the layer of rock it is in, or the rock by the fossils in it. So I will just be brave and throw out my non-judgemental answer…
The (true)church and the functioning of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is the first thing that comes to mind as a perfect example of unity in diversity. And yes, God is three distinct persons in one God-head, who lived in perfect harmony before he created us (and didn’t need us for company because companionship was already there, but he made us anyway). I know some wouldn’t agree, but I think that is a good understanding of a Triune God, although not the only explanation for unity in diversity, as I mentioned in the example of the church, although we do not always display unity that well, and there is also a false unity in diversity (ecumenism).
So that’s my final answer. But then, I am no Bible scholar and not very bright at the best of times.
The above quote in my post is part of Ravi Zacharias’ speech at the Mormon Tabernacle a few years ago.
How about this then written by Thomas Aquinas…
Thus, to avoid the error of Arius we must shun the use of the terms diversity and difference in God, lest we take away the unity of essence: we may, however, use the term “distinction” on account of the relative opposition.
Found here
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.iii.FP_Q31.FP_Q31_A2.html?highlight=unity,diverse,trinity#highlight
AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
I knew it was a trick question.
No, not really a trick question. The reason why I asked is because I have had so many people comment on my ‘Ravi Zacharias - is he becoming questionable? post, that I wanted to do some more research on it. I came across the actual seminar that he did in the Mormon Tabernacle, and Ravi spoke about the trinity is this way to Mormons. The title of his speech was “Who Is the Truth? Defending Jesus Christ as The Way, The Truth and The Life”.
I was just wondering if the use of the term ‘unity in diversity’ was a term that effectively explains the doctrine of the trinity to Mormons who don’t understand this Christian concept.
Not only that, but I was reminded that it says in the bible of the three being in agreement…
1Jn 5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.
Perhaps Thomas Aquinas saw that using the term diversity can mean difference and not in agreement?
This is said of Arians…
More later as I have downloaded a pdf file about the Doctrine of God. I am thinking that Ravi was not as clear as he could have been when he was given the opportunity to be.
Gotcha. Jacob Prasch mentioned that whole Ravi/Mormon thing last weekend.
What did Jacob say Carla? You can email with it if you like!!!
I found your website while looking for this quote from Ravi Zacharias. Just a thought… “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.” Each person of the trinity has a diversity of roles and yet they are one. The church has a diversity of gifts yet we are united in Christ. I think Ravi was right, the only place that we find diversity and unity is in the triune God.
This whole thing got me to thinking again about the difficulty we are now facing with the corruption of our language problem layered on top of the problem in reaching a different mindset with a new idea. Ironically, I see an advertisement to my left on this page which says “Bridge of Reason”. And that is half the answer to the problem, the other half being the bridge to the heart. What are the Momons hearing when Ravi said what he said? I know what I “heard” when I read Vee’s synopsis and quotes. But what I understood was based, in part, on loyalty to a brother in Christ, in part on trust based on his past performance, and in part on my desire to listen impartially about the situation. What more can we do? Can we do better? O, certainly. But that isn’t really the complete question, is it? There’s another part to it that involves time. Last night I fell asleep listening to this marvelous talk about human dignity and our purpose in life, and I remembered when I first began my search for God. The chief question I had then was: “What is my purpose in life?” My mind didn’t really framework the question in those exact words, but it was lying about waiting to be answered like a hunger. I heard the answer, but I didn’t understand it until 20 years later. That talk reminded me of that. What was I hearing 20 years ago? The pressures of performing for a purpose instead of knowing my purpose, which has many aspects to it, with physical work being actually only one small part. There’s still so much I don’t yet understand, but at least now I am dimly aware of it; I do see through the glass darkly. Perhaps, the best we shoul hope for at this point, is that the dim idea, the germinated seed was given to the minds of some in that audience where Ravi spoke. The Holy Spirit tells me that it was. Why do I know this? Because “I planted, Apollos watered, but God kept making it grow.” When we are dealing with imperfect words, but perfect faith, when we sometimes cannot even pray to the Father except with words and groanings unuttered so that the Holy Spirit promises to step in for us on faith that we really do MEAN to say the right thing, to ask according to His will, then I must have faith that we are living in a time of great noise when the Great Shepherd’s voice will still be heard clearly in the midst of that confusion because we must extend the invitation to everyone despite our fears and our concerns, our personal inadequacies and our best-laid intentions. The time left is so short and the time it takes for things to sink in sometimes so frustratingly long. I was looking at the RZIM site this afternoon and happened on this page which had the following reference for recommended reading under the subject “Cults and World Religions”: “The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism” http://www.rzim.org/resources/biblio_all.php Somehow, the thrust of that book’s title seem to lay a lot of things to rest.
What Ravi is trying to express is not necessarily a definition of trinitarian doctrine. Though the doctrine of the trinity has a part in this thought process, the thing he’s trying to point to is the eternal preexistence of God, and the singularity of the God-head. Mormons do not believe that Jehovah is the only god, but rather one among many gods. Mormons do not believe that YHVH is the uncaused, first cause. Rather, they believe that He was caused, just as he (Jehovah) causes other gods to exist.
Unity within diversity is an argument that has been discussed since the earliest philosophers. The idea of an uncaused first cause must posit a case where that cause is itself uncaused. You cannot simply state God ‘is’ without providing a rationale for why God is. God himself has an understanding of that reasoning, but few on this earth do, or ever have.
The key to this all lies here: God gives his name to us “I AM.” This is not I was, I will be, but simply, I AM. This infers an existence devoid of relativity, superior to cosmos. God is also expressed in three persons; Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Each has a unique and distinct role in their function, yet all three remain one person.
What Ravi has done is introduce a set of challenges to the very heart of the Mormon faith. These challenges will, in turn, present questions that must be answered. This is God’s will. How these people respond after listening to this speech will determine their fate from here forward. Ravi is responsible to deliver God’s word, in the way God wants that word delivered. What these people do once they have received the word is their own responsibility.
Remember Baalam and the ass. God used subtlety by stopping the ass before he ‘whipped out the stick’ by making the ass talk. Ravi is using subtlety. Have no fear, the stick will come in God’s own due time.
William,
I agree with you about Ravi’s intent. I thought your explacation of his approach dead-on. That is exactly what he did and the confrontation was an intellectual one that will ineluctably lead to the heart of one within the Mormon church who honestly seeks God. It may not travel the distance between the head and the heart for some, but it will for those God opens the path.
God bless you,
Melly