Therein lies my point, precisely: If it is something that cannot be settled this side of the Jordan, then it should not be a prerequisite toward orthodoxy. That which is neither declared, nor provable, should not be there to divide the Body... And I would submit, with all candor, that the observable fractures between us are, for the main, contained among those things which cannot be proven. And those same things also serve to keep us at arms length from our brothers in Judaism (notwithstanding their own similar notions which grieve us).
Such a mindset will put a much different spin on Col 2.
Furthermore, let me once again affirm that we are not in disagreement, at least on the basic premise. That all three are divine is provable in the end. That there is only one God is declared, ergo IF all three are divine, AND there is only one who is divine, THEN we are left with the solution that all three are the one God. Any mechanics beyond that lead to division. How that works is *not* defined, and is therefore beyond our ken. It is enough for me that it is declared that 'Our God is ONE God'.
So let us look eagerly thither.
Maranatha! (d00d! Thither! Nice.)
I guess I don't see The NC Creed or the bogus but delightful Athanasian creed as limiting Him. I don't see HIM being in the box. But, bearing in mind your strong cautions about sapientia, I think they help prevent incoherence by, so to speak, clumping up the places where we have to say, "Okay. Mind officially blown. I can say no more."
Understand that I do not intend for you to draw from my words the idea that YHWH is limited in any respect - That being the point - And in that, I think we would be wise to take a page from the Hebrews, holding above all reverence even the idea of God. They try to be very careful (to a fault, I might admit) to refrain from defining that which cannot be defined. I think one is best served to couch one's opinions upon what YHWH has declared and defined on His own terms. To speculate further is a form of hubris, and can quite easily lead to blasphemy.
Clearly there can be no adequate depiction of God. But clearly there can be something that is nothing more than babbling. We want to avoid both extremes, if we can.
Sure. But it is not extreme to 'let' YHWH define Himself - The purpose He is about is in revealing Himself to us - Repairing the rift so that we may know Him. Wouldn't it be best to take Him at His word, assured that He will reveal as He will?
[roamer_1:] I don't think creeds give principles, I think they maintain limits.
I find that they limit discourse, and usefully. I think I've told you of a time, I can't even remember what was at issue, when I was arguing with my professor. And, referring to Chalcedon, I said, "You're confusing the natures!" And he retorted, "I am not. YOU'RE dividing the person."
And I, were I there, would cry, "A pox on both your houses!" Either position is just as lacking in proof as the next.
To limit discourse is fine in debate, but on the whole, in defining doctrine (nay, dogma), I think it a monumental error. The discourse should be limited by the facts. What we 'think we know' is indefensible.
Let-me take one more stab, from another direction. [Arianism v. Nicene/Chalcedon Trinitarianism]
I understand your position, but Trinitarianism has it's problems too - How is it that El Elyon can experience temptation, fear, and death? How is it that Yeshua does not know things that only the Father knows? How is it that Yeshua is granted authority which by right (if He is the Father), is already His anyway? Here's the answer: WE DON'T KNOW. And to assume we do know in the face of such errata is an act of intellectual lunacy.
And by asserting what we don't know as fact, we open ourselves to the argument against the 'fact'. Therein, the limitations set forth by the definition become assailable, and division becomes inevitable. To wit: BECAUSE of Trinitarianism, Arianism. And rightly so, as the Trinitarian model is not defensible. That is not to say that Arianism IS defensible, but rather that neither of them can be right.
What is right? YHWH is God. That is the fact. If one cannot define Him (as you rightly admit), how then can one define as absolute the mechanism of the trinity?
I may not, am not able to, insist I know every contour of Everest. But I can insist it's not a hole in the ground.
Work with me. It's a weak analogy. I think the Nicene->Chalcedon stuff is like that: It's not a hole in the ground.
I want to chew on your post for a day or two. I think we need to read Fides et Ratio or something similar.