Moved from Philosophy - The Trinity and the law of non-contradiction
- Thread starter Wryetui
- Start date
There’s a weakness to the term “homoousian.” It didn’t have much history, so its meaning wasn’t entirely clear. Indeed most Church histories will tell you that it was acceptable precisely for that reason. In the end almost all the bishops signed, including those who were moderate Arians. It’s pretty clear that some people understood “of the same essence” as meaning that they had a single substance, while others understood it as referring to the two entities of the same kind. (Recall that the Holy Spirit wasn’t an issue at Nicea.)
Part of the reason it’s hard to explain the Trinity is that the councils generally had people with different views, and the standards were intended only to rule out extreme views. That means that you’re not going to understand the Trinity by a careful study of the words hypostasis and ousia, because that formulation was part of a standard intended just to set limits.
The West and the East have often had some different approaches. In my opinion they’re both logically consistent. Which is consistent with Scripture is a separate question.
The West tends to start from God as a single entity. Augustine saw God as one entity, with only as much distinction within him as needed to allow for relationship. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following: “it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction.”
The East tends to start from the three Persons and show that God is one by showing that the three Persons have a single will and action.
Each of these can ultimately be explained in a non-contradictory way. But if you stick at the level of three persons and one essence, without looking at a specific model, it just isn’t sufficiently definite to do an analysis.
Part of the reason it’s hard to explain the Trinity is that the councils generally had people with different views, and the standards were intended only to rule out extreme views. That means that you’re not going to understand the Trinity by a careful study of the words hypostasis and ousia, because that formulation was part of a standard intended just to set limits.
The West and the East have often had some different approaches. In my opinion they’re both logically consistent. Which is consistent with Scripture is a separate question.
The West tends to start from God as a single entity. Augustine saw God as one entity, with only as much distinction within him as needed to allow for relationship. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following: “it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction.”
The East tends to start from the three Persons and show that God is one by showing that the three Persons have a single will and action.
Each of these can ultimately be explained in a non-contradictory way. But if you stick at the level of three persons and one essence, without looking at a specific model, it just isn’t sufficiently definite to do an analysis.
Upvote
0
Then your analogy of comparing Jesus to God, by comparing the description of something to the object itself, fails.
Ken
Upvote
0
It’s misleading to speak of the Trinity as three “people.” In common English, when we speak of a person, we mean what in Trinitarian language would be a being with a single hypostasis and a single ousia. That is, in people we don’t need to distinguish hypostasis and ousia. A human has a single will, relates to itself and others as a single center of relationship, and takes a single set of actions.
But in the Trinity, at least using the Western concept, the Trinity as a whole has a single will and a single set of actions. But there are three centers of relationship — not just with others, but internal to the Trinity.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says “the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence.”
Thus when dealing with God, hypostasis and ousia have to be distinguished. To say that God is three “people” would imply three hypostases and three ousia, i.e. three minds and three wills, which of course would be tri-theism.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Crowns&Laurels
Well-Known Member
Mormons believe they all become God, becoming 'infused' to God so to speak.
Don't hold me to that statement though, it's simply what I've heard and presumed.
Nevertheless, it's because of their oddball ideologies that they aren't considered 'Christian' by the main body of churches. Such beliefs are, at best, heretical, though I don't judge. I don't have a problem with them, it's better than being apostate altogether!
Upvote
0
keith99
sola dosis facit venenum
I see no problem with a triune God. The argument against such is simply word games using "=". Weak word games at that.
Now those arguments may well work as regards some doctrines regarding said God, but not the simple idea of One God in 3 persons.
It seems to me that if one wants to make such an argument this is a poor one to make, Jesus as Fully man and Fully God seems a much more relevant issue especially since fully man has to include all the weaknesses of man. Start looking there and the very foundation of Christianity starts to erode.
Now those arguments may well work as regards some doctrines regarding said God, but not the simple idea of One God in 3 persons.
It seems to me that if one wants to make such an argument this is a poor one to make, Jesus as Fully man and Fully God seems a much more relevant issue especially since fully man has to include all the weaknesses of man. Start looking there and the very foundation of Christianity starts to erode.
Upvote
0
MOD HAT ON
This thread is being moved to Paterology - Christology - Pnuematology :http://www.christianforums.com/forums/paterology-christology-pneumatology.81/
NO MOCKING PLEASE
1. Please be respectful toward each other's character and beliefs.
2. Please do not mock Christian beliefs, including the Trinity.
If your post is missing it's due to a thread cleanup for this issue.
MOD HAT OFF
This thread is being moved to Paterology - Christology - Pnuematology :http://www.christianforums.com/forums/paterology-christology-pneumatology.81/NO MOCKING PLEASE
1. Please be respectful toward each other's character and beliefs.
2. Please do not mock Christian beliefs, including the Trinity.
If your post is missing it's due to a thread cleanup for this issue.
MOD HAT OFF
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In English people is plural for person, but because of the christian influence on the English language, they make an exception for the trinity.
What is a “center of relationship”? What does that mean?
What is “ousia”? The word isn’t even in the dictionary. Also what does a three-fold consciences mean?
But getting back to your point, you can’t have 3 separate people/persons/beings with the same single mind. Even if they all thought the same thoughts at the same time, you will still have 3 separate minds.
But your point seems to go back to my original point; you are saying A+B=C but C-B does not equal A and you have neglected to do the algebra to demonstrate your point.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
If you remove the equal signs (since this is not mathematics) and deal with this as a theological issue, then there is no contradiction whatsoever. Also if we substitute "triune Godhead" (since "Godhead" is slightly different from "God") for "Trinity" it becomes very clear that there are in fact three Divine Persons within the Godhead, and each one of them is fully God. The important thing to understand is that this is not something to be solved by human logic, since this is Divine logic. And there is a big difference between the two.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; (Gk theiotes) so that they are without excuse: (Rom 1:20).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 15, 2014
- 1,320
- 255
- 26
- Country
- Romania
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
It seems odd to me that you are an atheist yet you have no idea about what we are talking about here, that looks to me that you are an atheist out of ignorance, because, in my opinion, in order to be an atheist, you actually have had to research all things possible and unpossible in order to deny them, but whatever...
"Ousia" means substance in greek. Also, I want you to tell me why something is real only when we prove it with the algebra? I mean, it doesn't make sense to me, we are talking about God, not about mathematics, about a communion of three persons, not numbers. And anyway, what do numbers prove? They are just inventions of our minds, numbers are not real things like a rock, so why would them prove anything?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
