Paradoxical Trinity Analysis

At the center of the Christian faith is a mystery. This mystery has everything to do with the identity of God, the nature of Christian community, the salvation history and our understanding of Christology. This is the mystery of the Trinity – how is the Godhead fully three persons, and yet one nature? Theophilus was the first to name the ‘triad’ nature of God in his letter To Autolycus in 170 A.D. Tertullian was the first to offer terminology to describe this mystery in Against Praxeas claiming “the Trinity” involved three ‘persons’ of one substance. This theology emerged from the Biblical witness, even though scripture offers no doctrine of the Trinity itself. Even more so, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity grew from the early church’s worship, witness and corporate experience. When faced with a mystery, heresies can’t help but emerge. Docetism and Arianism, Adoptionism and Monarchianism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism are just a few of the heresies that emerged in attempts to explain away the mystery. And yet, theologians from the second century to the twenty-first century are faced with the challenge of witnessing to this mystery in both the theologia and the oikonomia of the Trinity. The church experiences the economic Trinity as new believers are drawn into Trinitarian community through an ongoing

Carl von Clausewitz is acknowledged to be one of the most influential writer on the topic of war and strategy. Despite the fact that Carl von Clausewitz wrote around 200 years ago his thoughts about the war remain relevant. This essay will explore to what extent the thoughts of Carl von Clausewitz can be adequate for explaining warfare in the modern era. The paper will introduce Clausewitz’s very systematic approach to the subject of war and will prove how useful it remains for formulating a definition of war that is able to conceptualize the many different forms of modern war. To achieve this task, the definitions “war is more than a chameleon” and “the wondrous trinity”, come to demonstrate that the theories of Carl Von Clausewitz are still adequate for explaining warfare in the modern era. Apart from that, Clausewitz’s tactical thought on defense and offence can help to explain why powerful states are not always able to win “small wars”.

Clausewitz’s theories on war are still relevant today with the revisualization of non-state actors on the world scene. The purpose of this essay is to expand on the applicability of these theories in today’s modern warfare where non-state actors play a larger, more global role. The study of theory, especially translated theory, requires an open mind to determine its applicability to various and ever-changing situations. In the case of Clausewitz, many strategists do not view his theories as relevant to today’s wars involving a Nation State vs. non-state actors. This is not true. The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College teaches that the commander’s intent is the most important part of proper execution. Strategists need to look

Many elements define and theorize modern strategy; several best demonstrate the foundations that reveal the limits of predictability in war. The main elements of strategy that demonstrate the limits of predictability in war are the will of the people, power and culture. Throughout history, many civilian and military leaders studied doctrine and theory concerning warfare with Clausewitz being the most read and quoted of that academic group. Although history has shown that modern warfare is violent and volatile, however, the desire for a more comprehensive study and predictability in war is understandable. Although, during Clausewitz’s time war was very predictable and his life shaped by expectable results. His theory and thinking have guided man into conflict and exposed war a violent ever-changing event that may provide some framework for determining the outcome of war. In discussing the limits of predictability during war and the desire for the aforementioned, it would difficult to discuss without Clausewitz; however, several other theorist and political leaders provide sage advice and will lend to this discussion.

Clausewitz developed many theories on the conduct of war, but he is perhaps best known for his attempt to describe the nature of war. Clausewitz understood the importance of history and explained, “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” While most theorists can find some common ground on the

Christian belief is unique because we believe that our God is a Triune God. The Bible reveals not only God the Father, but also God the Son and the Holy Spirit. Those three persons are united and undivided. They work together in the human history. As a result, the study of the Son, Jesus Christ and the third person, the Holy Spirit is essential and important when we study Christian theology. Since Jesus is the key figure in Christian or actually in the whole human history, his identity has always been controversial. The first part of this paper will examine the person of Christ, the second person of the Trinity. Then, the focus will switch to the third person of the Three who is the Holy Spirit. The relationship between the Son and the Spirit is always closed and interconnected. We will explore the importance of this relationship and develop some implications based on the understanding of these two persons of the Trinity.

From ideal war, Clausewitz also discussed about the nature of real war. Clausewitz absolute war only means war as an abstraction, ‘war on paper’. Most real events are driven by incomprehensible forces like chance, emotion, bureaucratic irrationalities, and intraorganizational politics. Moreover many strategic decisions are made unconsciously, often long before the outbreak of hostilities. In explored why real war is so different from his abstract model, Clausewitz imposed that real war is constrained by the ever-present social and political context, by human nature, and by the restrictions imposed by time and space. While it’s true that war is an act of force to compel our enemies to do our will, but it is clearly much more than that. Its violence alone cannot account for our actual experience of the phenomena of war. Other modification

The First Element of the Trinity is violence and passion. This is what necessary for war and comes from society. Nevertheless, it does not mean that violence and passion appeared from nowhere. It comes with the time and usually exploited by politicians or other leaders. The violence and passion is necessary because it serves as motivation. However, Jomini had traditional point of view, therefore he relates decision to go to war just with the government of state. Nevertheless, we should admit that without violence and passion of the people World War I would barely be so cruel and took millions of

The word Trinity cannot be found in the bible, but neither can omnipresent or omniscient; yet they all describe the Biblical expression of who God is and how he is revealed to humanity. Furthermore, the doctrine of the Trinity is so crucial to Christianity, that if it was removed Christianity would crumble and fall into cult status. Even through the doctrine of the Trinity took almost a three hundred to be formally stated at the Council of Nicea (325) and the Council of Constantople (381);1 Roger Olsen points out that “all one has to do is read second- and third-century church fathers such as Athenagoras, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen or Cyprian to see immediately that Christians believed in the Trinity long before Constantine called all the Christian bishops to the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325.”2

Though the word “Trinity” is not explicitly found in the Bible, the teaching that there are three individual personalities of divine nature (known in the New Testament as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is thoroughly scriptural and has been generally acknowledged by the writers of “Christendom” since the apostolic age.

Carl von Clausewitz counsels that “The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgement that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.” The “test,” which Clausewitz refers, focuses on the relationship between the political

John Feinberg states that one possible way to logically conceive the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is through the "label relative trinitarianism." By approaching the Trinity with a relativistic lens, Feinberg attempts to reconcile the ancient disputes which played a real part in "the split between the Eastern and Western Churches." However, the Church has always approached the mystery of the Trinity with tentativeness, especially since it is a dogma of revelation. In other words, although the Trinity is not mentioned directly in Scripture, it is nonetheless revealed sequentially. Because it is a revealed truth, it cannot be said to go against reason but as the Vatican I council of the 19th century concluded: "The divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity"¦." With this essential point in mind, this paper will show that the doctrine of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity contains nothing that goes against reason but yet that cannot either be fully grasped by human reason alone.

Many would agree that the Trinity is one of the most complex and difficult of the Christian doctrines to fully understand. It is tough for many to process the complete meaning of the Trinity. Is it three different people? Are they all God himself? If we believe that God is “entirely other” it may make it easier to fully understand the concept of the Trinity and to answers these questions that numerous Christian’s have. Often, it is difficult for us to explain Heavenly concepts that we cannot physically see for ourselves. The Trinity is important to understand and to building our faith. Powell writes, “As Christians many of us highly prize the doctrine of the Trinity but have no idea why it is so important.” We should cling to the Trinity but first we must comprehend what is meant by this doctrine.

The Holy Trinity is, according to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, “the theological doctrine that God consists of three persons” (Audi, 928). Those persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each within the religion of Christianity are considered omnipotent and omniscient (IEP, URL). This theory validates the actions of the religion 's savior Jesus Christ, who as the Son of God (and part of the Holy Trinity) died a painful death of suffering for the sins of humans. This offers reasoning for the worship of different God 's within the monotheistic religion. The concept of the Holy Trinity creates a paradoxical puzzle that many philosophers and theologians are still trying to explain to this day. However, during medieval times philosophers may have gone through greater lengths to explain the trinitarian view than any other era in philosophical history.

In contrast to both Echevarria and Simpson, Mary Kaldor in her article “Inconclusive wars: Is Clausewitz still relevant in these global times?” argues that the nature of war today is so different that it is impossible to make a comparison between the wars of Clausewitz times and contemporary conflict. “The notion of absolute war and the inner tendency to lead to extremes” (Kaldor 2010, 271) is not applicable to modern warfare. The unlimited character of absolute war that Clausewitz saw in the Napoleonic wars today, due to technological developments like the atomic bomb , would lead to the annihilation of civilization. As a result contemporary warfare has developed the notion of deterrence or “wars fought in the imagination” (Kaldor 2010, 274) that tend to be long lasting, inconclusive and have the tendency to spread. Furthermore, Kaldor reasons, wars today not only involve non-state actors and international organizations, that were not present in Clausewitz intrastate conflicts, but they are about identity politics that target civilians as much as soldiers. Modern conflicts are a form of societal disintegration more so than the state building wars of Clausewitz’s period. It is therefore more accurate to define today’s wars as “an act of violence involving two or more organized groups framed in political terms” (Kaldor 2010, 271).