Triadic Reality (a discussion between oldhermit and Kenisis)

[kenisyes]

I agree with your treatment of law, and nonlinearity (for which I have a totally other definition) of course.

But let me point out that it is possible to advance a sixth argument of law vs. matter somewhat as follows: There is no absolute reality and no space or matter. Neither being nor nonbeing exist. Since nonbeing does not exist, (having no being to compare itself to), sheer randomness produces distinct regions of relative noncomparability. The regions are then basic realities, which can function as fundamental particles, since they are recognizable. These particles, at random, occasionally congregate in groups. These groups, if large enough, create a universe. Within the universe, the humans are consistent with the particles (which remember exist only because they do not, but cannot tell that), since they are part of the same universe. Their sameness resonates with their surroundings and thus creates the impression of matter. The matter is thought by them to be organized, since it follows the laws within the humans themselves. So there is no matter, no thought, no law, and yet the appearance of all three, at various points in the non-space of nothing.

I know you will say that an initial creator must be posited to create being and non-being, but I have hypothesized none exist. You also have to remember that this is next to impossible to render in human language. Brahman, in "his" perfect form comes fairly close, I believe. It contains evolution as a special "detail", since evolution is the last stages of the particles assembling themselves.

 

[oldhermit]

I agree with your treatment of law, and nonlinearity (for which I have a totally other definition) of course.

But let me point out that it is possible to advance a sixth argument of law vs. matter somewhat as follows: There is no absolute reality and no space or matter. Neither being nor nonbeing exist. Since nonbeing does not exist, (having no being to compare itself to), sheer randomness produces distinct regions of relative noncomparability. The regions are then basic realities, which can function as fundamental particles, since they are recognizable. These particles, at random, occasionally congregate in groups. These groups, if large enough, create a universe. Within the universe, the humans are consistent with the particles (which remember exist only because they do not, but cannot tell that), since they are part of the same universe. Their sameness resonates with their surroundings and thus creates the impression of matter. The matter is thought by them to be organized, since it follows the laws within the humans themselves. So there is no matter, no thought, no law, and yet the appearance of all three, at various points in the non-space of nothing.

What you are describing here sounds like a matrix world. Even if such a dimension as this existed, it too this would have to be regulated by law. However, if there are no absolutes, not space, and no matter, no being nor non-being, this necessitates the non-existence of such a state. If there is nothing upon which law can act, there can also be no law. Everything about this theory is self contradicting.

I know you will say that an initial creator must be posited to create being and non-being, but I have hypothesized none exist. You also have to remember that this is next to impossible to render in human language. Brahman, in "his" perfect form comes fairly close, I believe. It contains evolution as a special "detail", since evolution is the last stages of the particles assembling themselves.

Even such a theory as this necessitates the existence of law to regulate and maintain it.

 

[kenisyes]

However, if there are no absolutes, not space, and no matter, no being nor non-being, this necessitates the non-existence of such a state. If there is nothing upon which law can act, there can also be no law. Everything about this theory is self contradicting.

Actually, this is a very well attested theory. It underlies a major piece of mathematics called the Godel incompleteness theorem, where non-existence and the discovery of non-existence can be used as the building blocks of the counting numbers.

It's quite a bit older, being the fundamental idea of Brahman, as I say. It reasserts itself in evolution theory, which is held to be random. In fact, there is a documented succession of states of perception that are reached in the pursuance of any religion. When these states are achieved without God, as they are in pagan India, this theory appears correct in the highest state. It is incorrect, of course.

Just as a logical possibility it needs to be suggested to be complete. The five possibilites are L(law) and no U(universe), U and no L, U implies L, L implies U, L if and only if U. No U, no L must be included. The simplest form of this, is that i am the only thing that exist (hence I am God), and you are simply a figment of my imagination.

 

[CoooCaw]

Actually, this is a very well attested theory. It underlies a major piece of mathematics called the Godel incompleteness theorem, where non-existence and the discovery of non-existence can be used as the building blocks of the counting numbers.

It's quite a bit older, being the fundamental idea of Brahman, as I say. It reasserts itself in evolution theory, which is held to be random. In fact, there is a documented succession of states of perception that are reached in the pursuance of any religion. When these states are achieved without God, as they are in pagan India, this theory appears correct in the highest state. It is incorrect, of course.

Just as a logical possibility it needs to be suggested to be complete. The five possibilites are L(law) and no U(universe), U and no L, U implies L, L implies U, L if and only if U. No U, no L must be included. The simplest form of this, is that i am the only thing that exist (hence I am God), and you are simply a figment of my imagination.

problem, there is NO randomness in the universe - hence chaos theory
here is NO solid matter - only information

it requires a consciousness to create information

 

[oldhermit]

problem, there is NO randomness in the universe - hence chaos theory
here is NO solid matter - only information

it requires a consciousness to create information

That quote is not mine. It was made by kenisyes. The formatting is wrong.

 

[oldhermit]

Actually, this is a very well attested theory. It underlies a major piece of mathematics called the Godel incompleteness theorem, where non-existence and the discovery of non-existence can be used as the building blocks of the counting numbers.

It's quite a bit older, being the fundamental idea of Brahman, as I say. It reasserts itself in evolution theory, which is held to be random. In fact, there is a documented succession of states of perception that are reached in the pursuance of any religion. When these states are achieved without God, as they are in pagan India, this theory appears correct in the highest state. It is incorrect, of course.

I am afraid this is beyond me. I doubt my math skills reach beyond the seventh grade level f that.

Just as a logical possibility it needs to be suggested to be complete. The five possibilites are L(law) and no U(universe), U and no L, U implies L, L implies U, L if and only if U. No U, no L must be included. The simplest form of this, is that i am the only thing that exist (hence I am God), and you are simply a figment of my imagination.

LOL!

Can you see where all of this line of reasonind is ultimately unanswerable when it is disconnected from the eternal causation of God?

 

[iamsoandso]

That quote is not mine. It was made by kenisyes. The formatting is wrong.

ahh,,,,that is an error,,,it changed your screen names,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[iamsoandso]

and then mine,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[kenisyes]

it requires a consciousness to create information

Unless the information is that there is no information.

 

[oldhermit]

Unless the information is that there is no information.

LOL LOL LOL . That was funny.

 

[kenisyes]

Can you see where all of this line of reasonind is ultimately unanswerable when it is disconnected from the eternal causation of God?

Yes. Since you are doing such a great job on presentation, I was just plugging a little hole in logic. i don't think that the list of five being complete or not is that important to your presentation anyway. After all, only a person who believes in God would want to read the Bible, and inquire into the best way of doing so. And you are presenting a contribution to the best of reading the Bible.

One of the basic principles of our faith is that without faith we cannot please God. This is just another example of what happens when there is no faith.

 

[kenisyes]

LOL LOL LOL . That was funny.

Godel incompleteness theorem: Counting is modeled by the empty set (for 0) and the set of the empty set (for1). Nothing and the consideration of nothing. This is enough to demonstrate that counting predicts the logical need for an "oracle" outside the system to know if the system contains any errors. Since every human being can count, that is enough to bridge the gap between nothing and the need for God (being the oracle who must be consulted).

 

[oldhermit]

Godel incompleteness theorem: Counting is modeled by the empty set (for 0) and the set of the empty set (for1). Nothing and the consideration of nothing. This is enough to demonstrate that counting predicts the logical need for an "oracle" outside the system to know if the system contains any errors. Since every human being can count, that is enough to bridge the gap between nothing and the need for God (being the oracle who must be consulted).

Interesting.

Do you wish to proceed with the next presentation?

 

[iamsoandso]

problem, there is NO randomness in the universe - hence chaos theory
here is NO solid matter - only information

it requires a consciousness to create information

well i guess that proves jules grisom incorrect in ch.2 page 8,,,,he eventually states there were 5 also,,, http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jul_grisham/ch.grisham.theodore.mopsuestia.pdf

 

[oldhermit]

If you are pleased to move on, we shall now deal with the concept of dyadic reasoning and triadic reasoning respectively. I know these are mathematical terms but I think they represent the two frameworks of reason quit nicely.

We will first examine Dyadic Reasoning

Human reasoning can be divided into two categories, dyadic and triadic. The pattern of reasoning one uses depends upon one’s perception of reality. Dr. Strawn explains dyadic reasoning as “a reflexive nominal movement that has only two points of valence. It begins on the temporal side and comes to bear upon something else on the temporal side.” Simply put, dyadic reasoning is man attempting to rationalize reality based on human lived experiences. Dyadic reasoning is a belief structure that attempts to refine and conceptualize the question of cause and effect based upon observable conditions. We routinely use this type of rationalization to understand how things work in our world. For example, the reason that we have rainfall is because meteorological conditions develop that produce it. These conditions are observable and allow us to formulate predictable outcomes. While these determined relations exist, they are not causal. Scripture shows us that meteorological conditions are not determinate for why we have rainfall or drought. In Leviticus chapter twenty-six, God promised Israel that when they came into the land of Canaan, “If you will walk in my statutes and keep my commandments … I shall give you rains in their seasons, so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit, 3-4. But if you do not obey me…, I will also make your sky like iron and your earth like bronze … Your land will not yield its produce and the trees of the land will not yield their fruit,” 19-20. Meteorological phenomena are not simply ordered by themselves. They are controlled and manipulated by God to extend either a blessing or a curse.

Dyadic reasoning is reflexive, always folding back on itself. It is never able to extend across the horizon into the eternal. It can never be linked to biblical faith because it is played out on the assumption that natural process is the causative agency in the universe. Dyadic reasoning is representative of how people generally relate to their world. If God is considered at all, it is only at the nominal level or even as a benign factor. We often give lip service to God as the controller of the universe but we speak and act as if nothing can happen that does not fit within the pattern of natural processes. In times of drought, man invariably seeks an answer to the question of cause and effect within these parameters. We pray for rain and then check with the weatherman to see if there is a possibility of rain. If the El Niño pattern does not favor us then we simply resign ourselves to the perceived certainty of a season with little or no rainfall hoping that next year will be different. Instead of petitioning the Lord to overturn this statistical regularity, we engage in predictive discourse that disregards the power of God to intervene. We place our expectation not upon God but upon the “certainty” of weather patterns and then wonder why our prayers go unanswered.

Another characteristic of dyadic reasoning is man’s attempt to gain control of his circumstance by the exercise of human will and intelligence and the martialing of human resources. We expend a great deal of energy and effort trying to become causative agents for our own interests. We labor under the delusion that human effort is the only causative force upon which we can depend. One can find any number of examples of dyadic reasoning in scripture. One of the most glaring example would have to be that of Abraham and Sarah and their conspiracy to take maters in their own hands in order to produce an heir. Rather than relying upon God to overturn all physiological barriers, they choose to rely upon human reasoning to produce a son. They rationalize their biological conditions, utilize their resources (in this case Hagar) and Ishmael is the result. This dyadic approach to problem solving not only invited the disfavor of God, but it also had far reaching consequences in human history. The world is still confronted with the fallout from this act of faithlessness. Scripture is filled with example after example of this kind of reasoning and God always regards this as unfaithfulness. All Abraham and Sarah had to do was simply trust in the promise of the Lord without regard for the time element. Dyadic reasoning will not trust in something that is beyond one’s own power to manipulate. The idea that we are not in control of our own circumstances is somehow very distasteful to us.

From that time to this, dyadic reasoning has not lost its hold on the human mind. We continue to entrust the outcome of our circumstances to human wisdom. In any given situation, man takes all of the resources at his command and tries to bring them to bear upon his circumstances in an attempt to force an outcome that is favorable to him. We certainly do this with regard to economic security. One may spend anentire lifetime planning for those long awaited retirement years. A man secures a good job with a promising future. He works and saves hoping to create a sense of security against the time when he is no longer able to work. He builds a retirement fund network of stocks, bonds, I.R.A’s, mutual investments and other similar forms of perceived financial securities. He may alsoinvest in some form of insurance that he feels will provide adequate coverage againstcatastrophic illness, disability, or death. He takes every precaution conceivable to ensurethe future care of himself and his loved ones with the expectation of enjoying this time of leisure (only to become a statistic and die within six months after his retirement).

Now, there is nothing wrong with these preparations. One may even argue that they are prudent. The problem is not that he utilizes these resources, but that he relies upon them as though they are determinant for his future security. What man does not often consider is that all of these things can fail by reason of events that are completely beyond his ability to control. What then, where does one find security when all human antecedents fail? In Matthew 6:31-32 Jesus says, “Do not be anxious saying what shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or with what shall we cloth ourselves? The Father in heaven knows that you have need of these things." We are not sure that we can trust this type of language. Emotionally we accept it as truth because the Lord said it, but intellectually we do not trust it because it does not fit our picture of how things work in the “real” world. After all, I cannot simply sit at home and expect that the Lord will just dump a load of groceries at my doorstep. To surrender ourselves to this type of language is to place ourselves at risk of being naked, going hungry or being thirsty. We are more prone to believe that we cannot completely entrust these things to God and expect satisfaction. We somehow feel more secure entrusting these things to our own efforts and then giving lip service to God for them. In the movie Shenandoah, there is a scene where the character Charlie Anderson (played by Jimmy Stuart) is gathered with his children around the table for their evening meal. He stands at the head of the table to “give thanks” for the food. In his prayer he says, “Lord, we cleared this land, we plowed it, sewed it, and harvested it. We cooked the harvest. It would not be here and we would not be eating it if we had not done it all ourselves. We worked dog bone hard for every crumb and morsel but we thank you just the same anyway Lord for this food we are about to eat, amen.” In this prayer, he accepts all the credit for what they have based on their own labors and efforts dismissing any divine involvement in the process. He then offers a non-committal “thank you just the same anyway.” What a vain and empty prayer! Most of us would never think of being so overt in speaking to God in this manor but we demonstrate this type of thinking in the way we deal with everyday issues of life. If the flowers of the field expend no effort or demonstrate no anxiety over the things they need for their everyday existence, what makes us believe that any efforts of ours would have any more value to supply our daily needs? Are not we more precious to God than a bunch of flowers? Now, this does not relieve us from the responsibility to work. This is a mandate from the Lord. “If a man will not work, neither let him eat,” 2Thessalonians 3:10. What we must understand is that our labors are not causal they are incidental for “all good and perfect gifts come from the Lord.” James 1:17.

To illustrate the truth behind the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:31-32 we need only remember the charge given to Israel as they prepared to enter the land of Canaan. In Deuteronomy 28:8-24 Joshua reminds them of what the Lord had spoken to them at Sinai in Leviticus 26:3-33. Their success in the land would not be contingent upon their labors but upon the Lord. This did not suggest that they were not to do the plowing, the planting, and the harvesting. This was their part. If they would keep the Laws of the Lord, he would bless their cattle and give them the harvest of their labors in abundance. If however, they failed to obey the Lord, all of their labors would prove an exercise in futility. The Lord promised to send upon them curses, confusion, and frustration in all that they undertook to do. No amount of labor on their part could overturn what the Lord would bring against them. The land would not produce and what little it did produce would be devoured by their enemies, insects, and diseases. Rather than enjoying blessings, their land, their herds, and their labors would be cursed. Returning to the Lord would remove the curses and restore the blessings. Everything they enjoyed was contingent upon their continued relationship with the Almighty. He is the causative agent in all things and in all things man is nothing more than an incidental element within the equation.

In spite of this, the dyadic mind insists upon assuming the role of God. We want to be the determinate factor in any given set of circumstances. Man suffers from the delusion that he is in control of his own destiny. This sentiment has been echoed in virtually every commencement address in the recent history of academia. Contrary to this popular sentiment, we are not the “captains of our own destiny.” The mind that reasons dyadically believes that technology and human reason are the ultimate determinants in this world. Man reasons that if he can develop and implement just the right technologies or if he can create just the right set of antecedents to any given human condition, he can cause things to change in his favor. Dyadic reasoning fails to recognize that causation does not reside within the human arena. Human reasoning is never able to produce biblical faith and can never equip one to develop a revealed understanding of the relationship that God holds with the natural world.

 

[kenisyes]

well i guess that proves jules grisom incorrect in ch.2 page 8,,,,he eventually states there were 5 also,,, http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jul_grisham/ch.grisham.theodore.mopsuestia.pdf

I did not find the statement in the paper. I am not surprised. This sort of thinking is more modern in the west, and until maybe 1930 was unknown outside of India.

Also, the quote is not mine (post 63), but is from post 64. The system has malfunctioned, quoting the wrong person. I am responding to what I beleive you intended to question.

 

[kenisyes]

To post #75, except for the idea that there are only two types of human reasoning (which is hardly proved), who can disagree? You either let God into your thinking or you do not. The names dyadic and triadic are as good as any.

 

[oldhermit]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Triadic Reasoning[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Triadic reasoning is reason that involves three supporting components that have a particular kind of relationship to one another. Triadic reality is made up of the eternal, this is the part of reality we cannot see; the temporal, which is the world of objects that lends itself to human empirical observation; and the linkage between the two. The linkage creates continuity between the observable and the non-observable. Everything scripture reveals about both the natural and the non-natural world is based on this triadic structure. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Our world is subject to a set of unseen triadic relations. Triadic faith recognizes this relationship. Triadic faith does not regard this
universe as a closed system but acknowledges that everything on the material side of reality is subordinate to the will and the power of God. Nothing in the universe or in your life stirs without the attention of the Almighty. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In 1Samuel chapter seventeen, we find the story of David and Goliath. Look at the circumstances of this narrative. Goliath is a seasoned and powerful warrior of the Philistines. He has been a worrier from his youth. He is well armed and well armored. He is just over nine feet tall and is accompanied by his shield carrier. David by contrast, is nothing more than a youth, perhaps in his late teens. He has no armor and no experience as a worrier or with combat. He has no weapons but a sling for which he gathered a hand full of stones. He is small in physical stature by comparison and he is alone. When David tells King Saul that he will go out against this Philistine, Saul’s attitude toward David is quite dyadic (we generally regard this type of reasoning as rational and sensible because it “faces the facts”). Saul uses the observable factors to formulate his conclusion of what he believes to be the inevitable outcome of such an encounter. “[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You are not able to go up against this Philistine to fight him[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]….” From the standpoint of dyadic reasoning, David did not stand a chance. All observable factors weighed against him with no possibility of redemption. He could not even rely on the armies of Israel to help him. David’s response to Saul reflects a triadic faith. “[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Lord…will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif].” When he goes out against Goliath, he says, “[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You come to me with a sword and a spear but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts…this day the Lord will deliver you into my hands,[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]” 45-46. Goliath trusts in his own strength, his experience as a worrier and in his proven weapons of war. Why not, they have served him well until now. He just knew that he was in control of this situation. David knew that no power of his could possibly overcome all of the variables of this situation, but when he assigns the circumstances to the power of God, the variables become quite irrelevant. The only possibility of deliverance would come exclusively from the Lord. Look at the triadic structure in this example. Goliath stands as the opposing obstacle in the natural world. God is the causative agent in the unseen world and David must stand as the linking agent in this triad and link together his situation to the power of God. In the triadic mind, all factors of physics and physiology are rendered benign. This of course does not mean that they are not real. It simply means that they are not determinate. The outcome of the affair is the death of Goliath and a restored confidence in the armies of Israel. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It is very difficult for us to ignore painful and sometime catastrophic circumstances and trust in God whom we cannot see, hear, or touch. This is especially true when we are unable to perceive that anything is working in our favor. We are more often afraid that if we do not intervene on our own behalf things will not go well for us. It is easier for us to abandon confidence in the Lord than confidence in ourselves to control the situation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I have chosen two examples that may help us better understand the concept of triadic reality and to illustrate how, that in the triadic movement, the index position links the other two elements in the triad. In this study, we will learn how two incommensurable worlds are joined together into a single reality. Consider these two examples.[/FONT]

I[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]n the building of any material structure, three components are always required. First, there is the one who represents the unseen world of ideas. The building exists initially only as an abstract within the mind of its creator. Second, are the building materials that exist in the world of objects such as wood, brick, mortar, purlin, conduit, and so on. Thirdly, the contractor serves as the linking agent. He is responsible[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]for organizing matter so that it conforms to the unseen idea. Without the contractor, matter will not simply reorganize itself and conform to the idea that exists in the mind of the Architect. Conformity requires the active participation of the linking agent. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Let us consider something as elementary as looking at a painting. When one looks at a painting, one can only do so on the basis of triadic structure. What one sees when one looks at a painting is not the painting itself but an image of the painting that is carried by light reflected off the object. Light strikes the object and travels the distance between the object and the eye of the observer. A copy of the object is then projected into one’s retina. An electrical impulse message is then sent to the cerebral cortex inside the brain. It then stores the copy of the object as an icon of the real, actual object. Only a representation of the object exists inside the brain. The brain then interprets the image and tells us that what we are seeing is a painting. This process is triadic because it uses three points of valence. There is the painting, which exists in the world of objects, the image[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]that is carried by light and created by electrical impulses in the brain of the observer, and the cognitive observer himself. The observer stands as the linking agent who must establish continuity between the painting and the image that is received by the brain. To do this, he connects the image in his brain to the object and is able to recognize the object as a painting. Recognition is the result of processing information received and comparing it with information already stored in the brain from his experiences with other paintings. Because he has seen a painting before, he knows what a painting looks like. He is therefore able to classify the object correctly. This is how we are created. This triadic structure allows us to interact effectively with the world around us. [/FONT]












[/FONT]

 

[kenisyes]

And this is why people who do not believe in God often hypothesize fate, or creativity, existing somehow outside reality, so they can get the third component in there. Like the oracle I mentioned in the Godel incompleteness theorem.

 

[oldhermit]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You may have already read this material but, I would like you to read it again against the backdrop of what we have already discussed. I think this a critical point that is mush overlooked and not understanding this point is one of the reasons that people are unable to grasp the concept of the Triadic Unity.

Linguistic valence refers to the definitions that we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we connect definitions to human language to help us create a picture of God with which we are comfortable. I offer the following well-known definition as an example. [/FONT]“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]God is one single unified essence. Yet, within this single [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]unified essence of God are three separate and distinct [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]persons of deity who are one God, each member having [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]his part in the creation and redemption of man[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]” (unknown source).

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now, I am not at all sure when or where this definition of God originated, but it is one that I have heard from a number of different sources over the years. While this definition may represent a not altogether invalid understand of the triadic unity it[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]does present three immediate problems.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. The definition itself; Man is not prone to accept anything on faith. Man feels that [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]he must be able to define, explain, and classify a thing before he will accept it. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This of course, becomes problematic when we think in terms of the nature of [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]God. It is impossible to reduce God to a linguistic formula. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. The use of the word ‘unified’. We can only comprehend unity as we see it[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]within [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the confines of our own human experience, not as it applies to God.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3. The use of the word ‘essence’: The word essence is a good enough word I [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]suppose. I am hard pressed to find a better one, but the way in which we have[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]used this word in relationship to God does not seem to fit the profile of God[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]in scripture. Strictly speaking, essence is that which makes a thing what it is. It [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]is the inward nature of a thing underlying its manifestations. Essence refers to the [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]characteristics and relations of a thing.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In his book THE TIMELESS TRINITY, Roy Lanier Jr. assigns this definition to the triadic unity. “[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]God is one ‘[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]being[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]’ consisting of three persons, one essence, one ‘[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]being[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]’; an undivided essence[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif].”

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The use of the term God in scripture does not seem to describe a single [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]being [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]as expressed by Mr. Lanier, but a single collective of three beings. Not one being made up of three parts but three beings united in one nature. The word God itself describes a perfect ontological state or quality of existence. God is not [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]who [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]he is, but [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]what [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]he is. Who he is, is Jehovah. What he is should be understood as an anthology of perfect attributes represented in three hypostatic distinctions. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
God has never given us anything by which we could formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs - carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristic that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. The extended properties of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
The ‘essence’ of God do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. While each member of the triadic unity seems to constitute some type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member. [/FONT]







[/FONT]