What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[Hoghead1]

What is a subsistent individual?

An individual or being which does not exist in another. Read the "Summa" on whether or not God should be called a person.

 

[Colter]

You’re reacting to oversimplified slogans supposedly supporting the Trinity. The power and authority all apply to God “as a whole.” Because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all persons of that whole, they all participate in the power and authority. In traditional theology, no action is done by any of the persons individually. They all participate in everything. So they don’t exercise power or authority individually.

I'm responding to what Jesus said about having achieved something additional as the result of his successful incarnation. Also, Jesus, while divine, did not speak as 1/3 of a undivided Trinity. The concept of a Trinity as Christianity adopted it from the Greeks was an attempt to understand how God the Father has a Son who is also a Father to our world. It's been debated ever sense because it has a major flaw, 1/3 of a unified Triune deity divesting itself of its fixed position and becoming a human.

It makes more sense to consider Jesus as a Son of the Trinity.

 

[Colter]

One thing is true - many galaxies.

Do you believe the Bible???

John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

He made the entire universe.

No, I don' believe all the Bible books, only the things that are true in them.

John 1 is one of my favorite philosophical prose in the Bible. God has divine Sons, Christ Michael is of of them. As a Creator Son, Michael is the Father to our local creation, he is unified with the Father in divinity. To see Jesus was to see the Father.

 

[hedrick]

In fairness, in Part 1, Q 28, Art 1, Obj 3, Thomas is dealing with the Trinity. Thus “real relation” is speaking of the relations within the Trinity, i.e. subsistent relations, meaning hypostases. I think this is a technical definition of “real”, and that he is not dealing with the question of whether there is an actual relationship between God and his creation.

If he said yes, then we wouldn’t have a Trinity, we’d have a Trillionty, with every creature part of God.

I do think we see in his theology the limits of using the type of analysis he does. But within the conceptual world given to him by tradition, I think he’s doing a good job interpreting it.

I feel the same way about your assertion that modern theology is modalist because it says God is one person. You need to look at the context in which modalism is defined. Modern theology says that God is one personality in the modern sense. But you’ve agreed that person as used in the Trinity isn’t the usual modern sense of person. So it’s perfectly possible for modern theology to be right that God is one personality but that he could still be in Aquinas’ sense three persons. Since modalism is defined as a heresy in traditional theology, you have to use the traditional theological definition of person to assess it. Thus I don’t believe that modern theology is modalist. Indeed I would argue that within a traditional analysis it would be heretical to claim that God is three personalities, because that would imply three wills and three consciousnesses, which of course is heretical.

This is why we speak in English of God as three Persons but not three people.

 

[hedrick]

I'm responding to what Jesus said about having achieved something additional as the result of his successful incarnation. Also, Jesus, while divine, did not speak as 1/3 of a undivided Trinity. The concept of a Trinity as Christianity adopted it from the Greeks was an attempt to understand how God the Father has a Son who is also a Father to our world. It's been debated ever sense because it has a major flaw, 1/3 of a unified Triune deity divesting itself of its fixed position and becoming a human.

It makes more sense to consider Jesus as a Son of the Trinity.

You’re going beyond the Trinity, and discussing the Incarnation.

The issue you’re discussing is whether Jesus is the incarnation of just the Son or of the Trinity as a whole. Very early in theological history, as I read it, it was decided that Jesus was the incarnation of the Son specifically, in part because to say that he was the incarnation of the Father would imply that the Father suffered, and that was unacceptable. It was called Patripassianism. I actually think the instinct that we can’t say that the Father suffered was wrong, resulting from an exaggerated concept of impassibility. You can claim that according to folks with that fear, Jesus might have been the incarnation of only part of God.

But the Trinity developed over time. Because every act of the Trinity involves all three Persons, and because of concepts like perichoresis, I think it’s questionable whether today it’s really true even in traditional theology to say that the Father doesn’t suffer. See e.g. this article: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/07/perichoresis-and-patripassianism.

But I would argue that even in modern concepts of the Trinity that avoid substance metaphysics, it does make some sense to say that Jesus is the incarnation of the Son specifically. While I believe that Jesus shows us God as a whole, he shows us God from the point of view of the Son. Jesus’ obedience as a son reflects something within the experience of God, but it surely shows us from the perspective of the side of the relationship that we call the Son.

The Son isn’t 1/3 of God. Maybe it looks that way in some theology, but by the time Western theology matured, I think in a modern sense God is one “thing.” The Persons reflect relations within God. That is, they result from the belief that the obedience of a son, and thus the relationship between Father and Son that we see in Jesus actually reflects something about God. So rather than saying that Jesus is the incarnation of 1/3 of God, I would say that Jesus shows us all of God, but from the perspective of the Son.

 

[Colter]

You’re going beyond the Trinity, and discussing the Incarnation.

The issue you’re discussing is whether Jesus is the incarnation of just the Son or of the Trinity as a whole. Very early in theological history, as I read it, it was decided that Jesus was the incarnation of the Son specifically, in part because to say that he was the incarnation of the Father would imply that the Father suffered, and that was unacceptable. It was called Patripassianism. I actually think the instinct that we can’t say that the Father suffered was wrong, resulting from an exaggerated concept of impassibility. You can claim that according to folks with that fear, Jesus might have been the incarnation of only part of God.

But the Trinity developed over time. Because every act of the Trinity involves all three Persons, and because of concepts like perichoresis, I think it’s questionable whether today it’s really true even in traditional theology to say that the Father doesn’t suffer. See e.g. this article: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/07/perichoresis-and-patripassianism.

But I would argue that even in modern concepts of the Trinity that avoid substance metaphysics, it does make some sense to say that Jesus is the incarnation of the Son specifically. While I believe that Jesus shows us God as a whole, he shows us God from the point of view of the Son. Jesus’ obedience as a son reflects something within the experience of God, but it surely shows us from the perspective of the side of the relationship that we call the Son.

The Son isn’t 1/3 of God. Maybe it looks that way in some theology, but by the time Western theology matured, I think in a modern sense God is one “thing.” The Persons reflect relations within God. That is, they result from the belief that the obedience of a son, and thus the relationship between Father and Son that we see in Jesus actually reflects something about God. So rather than saying that Jesus is the incarnation of 1/3 of God, I would say that Jesus shows us all of God, but from the perspective of the Son.

In my theology the Son, who incarnate as Jesus, is a creation of the trinity, not the second person of "The Father, The Son and The Holy spirit". Jesus confined his revelation to the Father aspect of the Trinity.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, it is not non-Trinitarian. you did not accurately read Wikipedia. Also, all this talk about heresy is way, way out of date. All heresy means is that you disagree with some church. It says nothing about the validity of your ideas. If you come right down to it, just about every one of us could be labeled a heretic. The Reformers considered the Catholics heretics, the Catholics considered teh Reformers heretics. The Reformers considered the Anabaptists heretics, and vice versa. I identify with liberal Christianity. Therefore, my agenda is to promote interfaith dialogues and mutual understanding, no all this finger pointing and denouncing.

From the Wikipedia article:

In Christianity, Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead—that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.[1]

How am I misreading it?

Heresy is when you disagree with or oppose Scripture. That's why modalism is a heresy. Not because it disagrees with a church but because it is unbiblical.

 

[Tree of Life]

They do not reject the Trinity. They simply have a different understanding of it. They hold the that Father, Son, and Spirit are all God. Hence, they are definitely Trinitarian. However, they feel these represent different aspects or roles of one personality, not three separate ones.

For someone who supposedly attended seminary I'm surprised that you don't understand this stuff.

 

[Erose]

But did you read Question 28? Thomas clearly says there that God is "outside" the universe. In his concept of "presence," he also stresses God is not "present" in the literal sense of the term, as I explained to you earlier. Thomas does not mean her or elsewhere omnipresence in the literal sense of the term. He means the power of God is present, but definitely not God. It can't get anymore plain than that.

Yes I read question 28, and that question needs to be read in light of question 8, and the realization that question 28 is in his discussion of the Trinity. You made a claim, a false claim, that Thomas did not teach the omnipresence of God, that I show was on your part a false accusation. Whether he teaches your idea of omnipresence or not, does not matter. What matters is that you made a false accusation.

 

[Erose]

I have no intention of checking them out, I have no need to. Again, there is the immanent trinity, which means the Trinity reveals nature of God; then there is the economic Trinity, which means we know only how God appears, not what God is in his own nature. If you go back and carefully reread the literature, you will see my point.

Well finally it seems that you are moving ever so slightly to have some idea of what economic Trinity means, just not quite there yet. You would be there if you would read the links.

 

[Erose]

I'm responding to what Jesus said about having achieved something additional as the result of his successful incarnation. Also, Jesus, while divine, did not speak as 1/3 of a undivided Trinity. The concept of a Trinity as Christianity adopted it from the Greeks was an attempt to understand how God the Father has a Son who is also a Father to our world. It's been debated ever sense because it has a major flaw, 1/3 of a unified Triune deity divesting itself of its fixed position and becoming a human.

It makes more sense to consider Jesus as a Son of the Trinity.

Obviously it doesn't, It makes much more sense to understand the Son in the Trinity. What you are proposing either makes Jesus not the Son, thus not God; or brings in a fourth person of the Trinity. Neither make sense.

 

[Colter]

Obviously it doesn't, It makes much more sense to understand the Son in the Trinity. What you are proposing either makes Jesus not the Son, thus not God; or brings in a fourth person of the Trinity. Neither make sense.

I disagree. A Trinity of coequal beings isn't a Trinity if one member leaves and becomes a human subject to the will of one other part of that Trinity. Jesus is a divine Son of the Trinity in my understanding.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sometimes I think westerner intellectuals do not appreciate what Greek Christians did in the early Church. Why do eastern Christians, both Greek and Oriental, not seem to have these kinds of issues with the doctrine of the Trinity? I wouldn't characterize Orthodox theologians as being "anti-intellectual", so that can't be the reason.

The intellectual tradition that Hoghead speaks of is something that was not uncritically accepted in the Church. Especially in the East, there were controversies about how God is known. The sort of theology that became popular in western Europe in the middle ages, dominated by rationalism, was rejected by Eastern Christians as inconsistent with the methods that have been used by the people of God since the beginning. The sort of caricature that Hoghead presents of how Greeks did theology doesn't do the Eastern understanding of the Trinity or divine immanence justice.

 

[Erose]

I disagree. A Trinity of coequal beings isn't a Trinity if one member leaves and becomes a human subject to the will of one other part of that Trinity. Jesus is a divine Son of the Trinity in my understanding.

I think that where you are confused about is what the Incarnation is. Google the Tome of Leo and read it. That should help you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cappadocious]

An individual or being which does not exist in another. Read the "Summa" on whether or not God should be called a person.

I'll wait for hedrick because this def. Has been proven nonsense in other threads.

 

[Colter]

I think that where you are confused about is what the Incarnation is. Google the Tome of Leo and read it. That should help you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't feel confused, I think Pope Leo was giving his sincere opinion about the identity of the Son of God. Jesus repeatedly referred to his Father as separate and higher than himself. But as a divine creation he also referred to himself as Father being a chip off the ole block. We are then in effect grandchildren.

 

[Erose]

I don't feel confused, I think Pope Leo was giving his sincere opinion about the identity of the Son of God. Jesus repeatedly referred to his Father as separate and higher than himself. But as a divine creation he also referred to himself as Father being a chip off the ole block. We are then in effect grandchildren.

Did you actually read it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Colter]

Did you actually read it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes

 

[BobRyan]

Question anyone, how does 1/3 of a triune deity receive all power and authority in heaven and on earth and retain its presumptive indivisibility?

depends on what is meant by "divisible"

 

[BobRyan]

The term "person" can be misleading into suggesting tritheism. That is the problem with it. Also teh PCUSA is not tearing down anything. The official policy gives the clergy theological freedom to rethink traditional doctrines. That's why it is been illegal for years to ask ministerial candidates where they stand on evolution and also the Virgin Birth.

And you have traded rejection of the Bible doctrine on creation - for evolution -- and in like-manner traded the Bible doctrine on the virgin birth for -- regular birth of a form that even atheists would not object to. And have traded in the Bible doctrine of the trinity for... ??? (Not sure what you believe at that point except for your complaints about "One God in three persons")