Trinity not Eternal

[Korah]

That the Trinity was not eternal I presented in my Post #21 in the thread, "Does Yahweh have a CONSCIENCE?" No one tried to refute me, and that stands as the last post in that thread July 5th.
Hear me out and you will see that I am not suggesting that God is not eternal. Here is the argument:
Does God need a conscience? Does He need a Devil's Advocate? Whether God needs reproof and correction is not the point, just whether the theoretical problem is there. And yes, theoretically it is there. We see people all the time questioning God's justice/mercy and appealing to a higher standard of rightness or goodness. Many suggest that there must be a higher standard of goodness than the judgmental god of the Old Testament.
God would certainly be aware of this problem, of at least a theoretical need for a second opinion. Thus whatever God originally was, He could get away from the problem by providing out of His own Substance a corrective factor. Out of the original 100% of God, God could have designated, say 40%, as henceforth to continue to be God, but to be known as God the Son. The balance would be God the Father.
Which leaves a further problem. What about the theoretical possibility that the two sides of God could disagree about some dealing with contingent beings? We are led immediately to hypothesize a third element of God to decide between the two. We call this the Holy Spirit. (We might say this would be something like 30% of God's original Substance, coming let's say 20% from God the Father and 10% from God the Son, leaving God the Father at 40%.)
That God is a Trinity is a better understanding of what God would Himself choose to be, so this is also an argument for the superiority of Christianity over any other religion.
Korah

 

[wlajoie74]

That the Trinity was not eternal I presented in my Post #21 in the thread, "Does Yahweh have a CONSCIENCE?" No one tried to refute me, and that stands as the last post in that thread July 5th.
Hear me out and you will see that I am not suggesting that God is not eternal. Here is the argument:
Does God need a conscience? Does He need a Devil's Advocate? Whether God needs reproof and correction is not the point, just whether the theoretical problem is there. And yes, theoretically it is there. We see people all the time questioning God's justice/mercy and appealing to a higher standard of rightness or goodness. Many suggest that there must be a higher standard of goodness than the judgmental god of the Old Testament.
God would certainly be aware of this problem, of at least a theoretical need for a second opinion. Thus whatever God originally was, He could get away from the problem by providing out of His own Substance a corrective factor. Out of the original 100% of God, God could have designated, say 40%, as henceforth to continue to be God, but to be known as God the Son. The balanace would be God the Father.
Which leaves a further problem. What about the theoretical possibility that the two sides of God could disagree about some dealing with contingent beings? We are led immediately to hypothesize a third element of God to decide between the two. We call this the Holy Spirit. (We might say this would be something like 30% of God's original Substance, coming let's say 20% from God the Father and 10% from God the Son.)
Korah

wow, gotta think. watching

 

[Stryder06]

I think I get what you're saying, and at the same time I'm not sure.

All I can say is that the Father Son and Holy Spirit have always existed as separate co-eternal beings, but are 1. I had to learn to accept this by faith when I was younger and God has removed the cloud of doubt and speculation, and how can that be from my mind.

Certain things about God we simply will not understand on this side of eternity, or on the other side lol, but at least we'll be there to ask

 

[wlajoie74]

So are you saying that God was once just YHWH. Then he took a part of Himself and made it His Spirit when He saw a need for Him to work within us. Then, he took another part of Himself and procreated Jesus with it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ subscribes......BUT.......will just lurk awhile to see what may become.......

 

[2 King]

This is a very controversial subject. Maybe you could be more clear on your intentions of what you are mening by all of this.

If Post #4 is right, that could cause a big stir.

 

[Korah]

This is a very controversial subject. Maybe you could be more clear on your intentions of what you are meaning by all of this.
If Post #4 is right, that could cause a big stir.

Technically, Post #4 is wrong, because it says God took of Himself and made the Holy Spirit, and then with the Holy Spirit generated God the Son. That would disagree with the Nicene Creed that has the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son. (Post #4 is apparently wlajoie74 interjecting his own speculations, maybe thinking of the Holy Spirit as "Mother".)
But yes, my way or Post #4 way either way could create a stir.
But that's not my intention. I'm simply suggesting an understanding that would allow all three persons of the Trinity to be Co-Eternal and yet justifiably allow one to be called the Son and one the Father. Wouldn't the Father be earlier in time? No, not if the Son is just as much the original God-Substance as God the Father. The words "Father" and "Son" would be just nominal? Or maybe real. Say that 10% of God came up with the original idea to split God, Say that particular 10% wound up becoming the 40% that eventually became the part that became God the Father.
Or God the Father might be called "the Father" because it is the "larger" part of the Infinite God. (Being paradoxical here--I'm not claiming that I understand God myself.)

 

[wlajoie74]

Technically, Post #4 is wrong, because it says God took of Himself and made the Holy Spirit, and then with the Holy Spirit generated God the Son. That would disagree with the Nicene Creed that has the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son. (Post #4 is apparently wlajoie74 interjecting his own speculations.)
But yes, my way or Post #4 way either way could create a stir.
But that's not my intention. I'm simply suggesting an understanding that would allow all three persons of the Trinity to be Co-Eternal and yet justifiably allow one to be called the Son and one the Father. Wouldn't the Father be earlier in time? No, not if the Son is just as much the original God-Substance as God the Father. The words "Father" and "Son" would be just nominal? Or maybe real. Say that 10% of God came up with the original idea to split God, Say that particular 10% wound up becoming the 40% that eventually became the part that became God the Father.
Or God the Father might be called "the Father" because it is the "larger" part of the Infinite God. (Being paradoxical here--I'm not claiming that I understand God myself.)

I wasn't interjecting any speculations, just trying to understand what you are saying.

I have come to the realization in the last week or so that God is a mystery and one we are not suppost to fully understand, unless he decides we are ready.

There are too many views out there for me to make a rational judgement as to who is right and who is wrong, but I still find the exploration of this subject fascinating.

So, are you saying that God appearing in different forms is Him "reasoning" about what is right for a certain time. ie the being vengeful etc was a split needed for the early Isrealites. A part of god split and came in the form of jesus to bring love back and save us from our sinful nature, and his spirit is what dictates when a split is is necessary for each individual circumstance.

 

[BrendanMark]

That the Father is the source has always been Trinitarian thought. That the Trinity is eternal is also basic orthodox theology.

The singular being and work of God, which all three persons are and carry out, constantly originates from the Father and is shared by the Son and the Spirit, because the Father gives it to them and they receive it. For this reason, Gregory repeatedly locates the divine unity not in the common Divinity—as if the father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one God in virtue of being members of the same class, or because they just happen to share the same nature—but in the monarchy of the Father, by which the Father fully shares his being with the Son and the Spirit.
Beeley, Christopher A. – Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, 2008, p.207]

Most of the confusion revolves around a pervasive assumption by modern historians and theologians, quite apart from the textual evidence, that God the Father’s superiority to the Son and the Spirit as their source and cause conflicts a priori with their unity and equality in being, or else that the divine monarchy and causality is not located in the Father specifically, but in the divine nature irrespective of its origin in the Father. Yet, as we have already seen, for Gregory the monarchy of the Father and the coequality and consubstantiality of the three persons not only belong together, but necessarily do so and in fact amount to the same thing. The priority of the Father within the Trinity does not conflict with the divine unity and equality, but is rather what causes and enables them.
Beeley, Christopher A. – Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, 2008, p.209-210]

To put it more sharply, Gregory is firmly rejecting the notion that the monarchy of the Father in any way conflicts with the equality of the three persons—on the grounds that it is precisely what brings about that equality! The modern objection in fact represents the very argument that the Eunomians brought against Gregory, Basil, and other pro-Nicenes: that the Son and the Spirit cannot be equal in nature with the Father because they are caused by him. Rather than resulting in ontological inequality, Gregory argues, the Father’s generation of the Son and the Spirit results in the their ontological equality and essential identity. Central to his Trinitarian doctrine, in other words, is the insistence that causality and consubstantiality, just as much as causality and personal distinctions, within the Trinity belong together in the same theological principle.
Beeley, Christopher A. – Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, 2008, p.210]

 

[Korah]

My presentation is clearly superior to that of Gregory of Nazianzus. His makes the Father much superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit, hardly to be called Co-eternal. He "preserves" equality in words but not in reality.

 

[brinny]

That the Trinity was not eternal I presented in my Post #21 in the thread, "Does Yahweh have a CONSCIENCE?" No one tried to refute me, and that stands as the last post in that thread July 5th.
Hear me out and you will see that I am not suggesting that God is not eternal. Here is the argument:
Does God need a conscience? Does He need a Devil's Advocate? Whether God needs reproof and correction is not the point, just whether the theoretical problem is there. And yes, theoretically it is there. We see people all the time questioning God's justice/mercy and appealing to a higher standard of rightness or goodness. Many suggest that there must be a higher standard of goodness than the judgmental god of the Old Testament.
God would certainly be aware of this problem, of at least a theoretical need for a second opinion. Thus whatever God originally was, He could get away from the problem by providing out of His own Substance a corrective factor. Out of the original 100% of God, God could have designated, say 40%, as henceforth to continue to be God, but to be known as God the Son. The balance would be God the Father.
Which leaves a further problem. What about the theoretical possibility that the two sides of God could disagree about some dealing with contingent beings? We are led immediately to hypothesize a third element of God to decide between the two. We call this the Holy Spirit. (We might say this would be something like 30% of God's original Substance, coming let's say 20% from God the Father and 10% from God the Son, leaving God the Father at 40%.)
That God is a Trinity is a better understanding of what God would Himself choose to be, so this is also an argument for the superiority of Christianity over any other religion.
Korah

God Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Alpha and the Omega, is holy. It is written, quite clearly and emphatically and declared by the Holy One Himself, that He is holy. Sin and darkness cannot stand in His presence. Surely you are aware of what He declares through His Word, brother in Christ.

 

[BrendanMark]

My presentation is clearly superior to that of Gregory of Nazianzus. His makes the Father much superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit, hardly to be called Co-eternal. He "preserves" equality in words but not in reality.

That you consider yourself superior to St Gregory the Theologian - who basically defined Trinitarian theology, at least for the East - and all orthodox theology derived from his work speaks more about your ego than any fault with the saint or orthodox theology. You seem to have misinterpreted the bit about "equality" that St Gregory was very aware of and considered very real.

The monarchy of the Father within the Trinity is thus the sort of causality that produces equality and shared being, rather than inequality; and the equality of the three persons is the sort of equality that derives from and involves a cause, source, and first principle, not the sort that exists apart from any first principle. In the Trinity, then, dependence and equality are mutually involved in each other, however much the idea may run counter to certain ancient or modern sensibilities.

Although some have maintained that the orthodox doctrine of God excludes all causal relations and any sense of superiority within the Trinity—by assuming either that he divine unity is chiefly characterized by divine simplicity and therefore admits of no further qualifications, or that the Trinity contains a purely reciprocal perichoresis that admits of no hierarchies whatsoever—Gregory emphasizes that the Son and the Spirit are not without source (άναρχος, 25.16), and that it dishonors them to imagine that they exist apart from being caused by the Father (23.7). Hence the first characteristic with which he defines the Son and the Spirit (25.15) is the fact that they derive from the Father: “one begotten Lord, the Son” and “one Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father”—again, echoing traditional creedal forms.
Beeley, Christopher A. – Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, 2008, p.210-211]

 

[Korah]

While I appreciate your diligence in extracting ECF theology in place of the usual blather here in GT, it's still technically Beeley and not Nazianzus. It's still acknowledging monarchy and causality from the Father, still clearly not equality.
I'm not saying you or Beeley or Nazianzus is wrong, I'm just saying that my presentation incorporates more clearly equality and co-eternality. I could be wrong, but it's still more rationally elegant than Nazianzus's (or Beeley's) concept.
A request, as you claim Nazianzus is foundational for later trinitarian thought. Could you document this for me by stating what scholar(s) attest this?
Korah

 

[BrendanMark]

And I couldn't work out at all what on earth you were talking about (still can't), so obviously I find Beeley (and I have much of St Gregory's work that Beeley cites) and St Gregory much more edifying and provided clarity to me. Your presentation does not incorporate equality and co-eternity as clearly (the title of the thread is Trinity Not Eternal, after all).

We have one God because there is a single Godhead. Though there are three objects of belief, they derive from the single whole and have reference to it. They do not have degrees of being God or degrees of priority over against one another. They are not sundered in will or divided in power. You cannot find there any of the properties inherent in things divisible. To express it succinctly, the Godhead exists undivided in beings divided. . . When we look at the Godhead, the primal cause, the sole sovereignty, we have a mental picture of the single whole, certainly. But when we look at the three in whom the Godhead exists, and at those who derive their timeless and equally glorious being from the primal cause, we have three objects of worship.
St Gregory of Nazianzus – Oration 31.14 [quoted from On God and Christ – The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, SVS, 2002, Frederick Williams trans.]

Your talk of 40% (or whatever it was) of God the Father going into the generation of Son and Spirit is, well, strange at the very least and makes no sense at all to me - and seems to me utterly contrary to orthodox theology. In fact, it seems to me you imagine divisibility (x%) where orthodox theology forbids it.

 

[wlajoie74]

too bad. I thought this might have gone a different direction. Same old song and dance.

 

[BrendanMark]

Really? I haven't seen too many citations of St Gregory the Theologian concerning Trinitarian theology around here. Must look harder in future.

 

[wlajoie74]

its good stuff don't get me wrong. just getting a little down on all the bickering and your wrong i'm right stuff. sorry

 

[Standing Up]

The idea that Christ is a created being or that the Spirit is too is wrong.

The problem comes from a false assumption in the OP about God. That He needs a "higher standard". He doesn't. There is none "above" Him. He swears by Himself. He takes an oath by Himself (Heb.).

 

[BrendanMark]

its good stuff don't get me wrong. just getting a little down on all the bickering and your wrong i'm right stuff. sorry

Well, that's par for the course in online fora, I've found.

 

[wlajoie74]

Well, that's par for the course in online fora, I've found.

Doesn't make it any less disheartening or acceptable. Technically this is the house of God. Wherever two or three of you gather in my name.... Wish people would stop and think about that. I have been guilty of it too though, so who am I to throw the first stone. Enough getting off topic.