Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerman
This is the first I've read about the 'grouping' view and seems just a modified trinitarian view of God. There is one group called "God" but within that group are things which aren't each other but together make up God. I guess that's what the grouping view would be?
That would still require one of the distinctions to step out of the group and not be part of the group and interact with others in the group as though it (He) were separate and distinct, when in fact He wasn't because it was still part of the group.
To me at least, that view works no better than the trinitarian view of God. Who am I to say that view is wrong? I don't understand how it can be, but that just may be a limitation on my part.
|
Nope you totally don't understand.
Maybe some background in what Prax believes would help you. Prax believes there is one "person" that has two "natures", one divine "nature" and one human "nature". Prax believes a being is a person with a nature. There the person with both the divine and human natures is actually 2 distinct beings, both a human being and a divine being.
Prax beleives that I am a person with a human nature and thus by his definition I am a human being.
What I contend is that Prax's definition of person actually makes it nothing more than a grouping term like flock or pride or family. This doesn't mean he belief is wrong, its just I like to call things what they are and his explanation of how Jesus is one person that is god and man involves a clever use of grouping (just like 2 or more birds may be called a flock he may call one or more beings a person), that is not very apparent at first because he uses the word person for the name of his groups.