What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[Hoghead1]

So are still claiming that Thomas does not teach God is omnipresent? Or have you left that argument?

I am sticking with it. I have given you passages in Thomas that you appear to have ignored and should read. I would encourage you to do so before commenting further.

 

[BobRyan]

It is from that standpoint that I surmise: The Trinity to be a stone in the foundation, showing (introducing), and bringing us into a greater understanding of the complexity of our Omnipresent God, whom, at the very least, can be personally known having those three faces that have been expressed. In the end, I should think, as we become One with Him, the total will come to include all our faces as well.

And so when you say "trinity" you mean -- "one God in three persons"?

 

[BobRyan]

I am sticking with it. I have given you passages in Thomasb.

"passages in Thomas"????

 

[Erose]

No, I didn't. Thomas made it very clear in 28 that God is "outside" creation.

Well duh. God is not part of creation. He created creation, and thus He is not a part of His creation. Whether God is part of creation or not, has no bearing on His omnipresence. One does not have to be part of something to be present in it. I'm setting in a hotel room right now, i.e. present within this room, yet am not a part of the hotel room.

Also, you need to look at 8, Art.3, where he uses the metaphor of a prince ruling from afar to describe how God works. You might also look at 8,3, where he cites his views as being supported by Dionysius, who said that things can not touch God.

I have read it, and you are reading it only partially. You need to read the rest of it to make sense of what Thomas is saying. Here is the key statement of Thomas from 8:3

Therefore, God is in all things by His power, inasmuch as all things are subject to His power; He is by His presence in all things, as all things are bare and open to His eyes; He is in all things by His essence, inasmuch as He is present to all as the cause of their being.

As I told you before, he sees God's power as present, but not God. So I would encourage you to go back over Thomas, before jumping the gun and taking pot shots at me.

Well that road goes both ways. You are the one that claimed that Thomas did not teach God's omnipresence not I. And you have been shown to be wrong on this matter.

Look I think the issue here is that you do not believe that God can be present, without being part of. Ok. But don't be surprised when one disagrees.

 

[BobRyan]

Hello all.

How do you folk understand the following verse.

Isaiah 44
6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts

There are two separate identities mentioned and both are identified as God.

6 “Thu says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
‘I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.

LORD is - YHWH

And yet - ONE God.

 

[Colter]

I don't mind Colter's theology of Jesus and the Father. To a first approximation it's probably OK, and matches the way both Jesus and Paul typically speak. However at times in Paul, and also in other writers, we see the idea that Christ is preexistent. That starts to push in the direction of the Trinity. So does the idea that Jesus is God with us, if you think about the implications. So I think non-Trinitarian theology is only an approximation.

Historically the Trinity and Incarnation were tied closely enough that everyone who denied the Trinity also denied the Incarnation. But I don't get the impression that Colter is doing that. If you're OK with the idea that the Father suffered, I think a real Incarnation can exist in a non-Trinitarian system. But it's unusual enough that it should give you pause.

I believe Jesus preexisted as a Son of the Trinity. As a paradise creator Son, he embodies both the atributes of the Father and the Son. This is consistent with the diversity of statements made by the incarnate Jesus while in the flesh that alluded to his identity in relation to his divine origin, in addition to his rightful place and office on high.

 

[Erose]

I am sticking with it. I have given you passages in Thomas that you appear to have ignored and should read. I would encourage you to do so before commenting further.

Ok, I went back and read our dialogue, and here is the question I have for you, before we go further, because perhaps we have been writing past each other instead of at each other in that one was thinking one thing the other something else. So just to clarify here: Are you saying only that Thomas taught that there was no REAL relation with Creation, or that He cannot have relation with Creation, and/or that God is not omnipresent in the universe?

 

[Erose]

Nuts! Yu go rad the links. Yu are the one having trouble understating what it is.

So what is your definition of the economic Trinity now then?

 

[Hoghead1]

So what is your definition of the economic Trinity now then?

I explained that to you before. The economic theory of the Trinity is the notion that we can know only how God appears to us, not what God is like in his own nature. The immanent theory of the Trinity claims that the Trinity does reflect the true nature of God, the inner workings of God.

 

[Hoghead1]

Ok, I went back and read our dialogue, and here is the question I have for you, before we go further, because perhaps we have been writing past each other instead of at each other in that one was thinking one thing the other something else. So just to clarify here: Are you saying only that Thomas taught that there was no REAL relation with Creation, or that He cannot have relation with Creation, and/or that God is not omnipresent in the universe?

I am saying that Thomas denied God was omnipresent. I say that on the based on the facts he states clearly God is "outside" of creation, also he likens God to a prince ruling from afar, also he stresses nothing can touch God. Thomas taught both. He stressed that God has "no real relationship" to creation, in the same breath he said that God is "outside" the whole order of creation. Indeed, God can't have a "real relationship" simply because God is an actus purus and therefore a nonrelational being.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well duh. God is not part of creation. He created creation, and thus He is not a part of His creation. Whether God is part of creation or not, has no bearing on His omnipresence. One does not have to be part of something to be present in it. I'm setting in a hotel room right now, i.e. present within this room, yet am not a part of the hotel room.

I have read it, and you are reading it only partially. You need to read the rest of it to make sense of what Thomas is saying. Here is the key statement of Thomas from 8:3

Therefore, God is in all things by His power, inasmuch as all things are subject to His power; He is by His presence in all things, as all things are bare and open to His eyes; He is in all things by His essence, inasmuch as He is present to all as the cause of their being.

Well that road goes both ways. You are the one that claimed that Thomas did not teach God's omnipresence not I. And you have been shown to be wrong on this matter.

Look I think the issue here is that you do not believe that God can be present, without being part of. Ok. But don't be surprised when one disagrees.

The problem is that you neglect to read and post some important passages where Thomas puts some serious qualifiers on his notion of omnipresence. You are not being a careful enough of a reader here. Above, for example, he is say8ing God is present because he is the "cause" of their being. That does not mean God is present in the literal sense you are taking it to mean. You remind me of those who carelessly say Thomas taught god is omnipotent, can do anything. Yes, Thomas said and described God as "omnipotent," but he put some qualifiers on it., providing a kind of cannot-do list for God. God, for example, cannot violate that laws of geometry

 

[Erose]

Ok, thanks for clarifying your position. I was hoping that I didn't waste a lot of time arguing against something that wasn't there and thankfully I wasn't. So here we go.

I am saying that Thomas denied God was omnipresent.

Concerning this point, I have pointed out were Thomas explicitly says that God is omnipresent in Part1, Q8, A3 he says: Therefore, God is in all things by His power, inasmuch as all things are subject to His power; He is by His presence in all things, as all things are bare and open to His eyes; He is in all things by His essence, inasmuch as He is present to all as the cause of their being.

I say that on the based on the facts he states clearly God is "outside" of creation, also he likens God to a prince ruling from afar, also he stresses nothing can touch God. Thomas taught both.

Well you are right concerning God's transcendence. But you only look at a partial of what Thomas commented on how He is present in all things here is what Thomas wrote in P1, Q8, A3, which is an expansion from his comment I quoted above:

I answer that, God is said to be in a thing in two ways; in one way after the manner of an efficient cause; and thus He is in all things created by Him; in another way he is in things as the object of operation is in the operator; and this is proper to the operations of the soul, according as the thing known is in the one who knows; and the thing desired in the one desiring. In this second way Godis especially in the rational creature which knows and loves Him actually or habitually. And because the rational creature possesses this prerogative by grace, as will be shown later (12). He is said to be thus in the saints by grace.

But how He is in other things created by Him, may be considered from human affairs. A king, for example, is said to be in the whole kingdom by his power, although he is not everywhere present. Again a thing is said to be by its presence in other things which are subject to its inspection; as things in a house are said to be present to anyone, who nevertheless may not be in substance in every part of the house. Lastly, a thing is said to be by way of substance or essence in that place in which its substance may be. Now there were some (the Manichees) who said that spiritual and incorporeal things were subject to the divine power; but that visible and corporeal things were subject to the power of a contrary principle. Therefore against these it is necessary to say that God is in all things by His power.

But others, though they believed that all things were subject to the divine power, still did not allow that divine providence extended to these inferior bodies, and in the person of these it is said, "He walketh about the poles of the heavens; and He doth not consider our things [Vulgate: 'He doth not consider . . . and He walketh,' etc.]" (Job 22:14). Against these it is necessary to say that God is in all things by His presence.

Further, others said that, although all things are subject to God's providence, still all things are not immediately created by God; but that He immediately created the first creatures, and these created the others. Against these it is necessary to say that He is in all things by His essence.

So you are only referring to Thomas' comment about God being present in all things by His power, but Thomas expands on this and states that God is also present in all things, by His presence essence.

So yes Thomas teaches Omnipresence.

He stressed that God has "no real relationship" to creation, in the same breath he said that God is "outside" the whole order of creation. Indeed, God can't have a "real relationship" simply because God is an actus purus and therefore a nonrelational being.

You are right concerning God cannot have a "real relation" to creation; but you are missing the point that the creature has, must have a "real relation" to God. In this Thomas writes in P1,Q28,A1:
Reply to Objection 3. As the creature proceeds from God in diversity of nature, God is outside the order of the whole creation, nor does any relation to the creature arise from His nature; for He does not produce the creature by necessity of His nature, but by His intellect and will, as is above explained (14, 3 and 4; 19, 8). Therefore there is no real relation in God to the creature; whereas in creatures there is a real relation to God; because creatures are contained under the divine order, and their very nature entails dependence on God. On the other hand, the divine processions are in one and the same nature. Hence no parallel exists.


I really have no idea how you can get to the point of claiming Thomas did not teach God's omnipresence when he wrote a whole question, with four articles on the matter, claiming otherwise.

 

[Erose]

No, no. The economic model simply means the Trinity is in mere appearance only, tells us nothing about the actual nature of God.

No, I am not giving you the definition of economic as per process. I am giving you the traditional definition. The definition you gave is not the traditional one at all. Again, economic meant we can know only how God appears to us, not what Gods is like inn the inside. I would suggest, then, that you go back and read the sources.

I explained that to you before. The economic theory of the Trinity is the notion that we can know only how God appears to us, not what God is like in his own nature. The immanent theory of the Trinity claims that the Trinity does reflect the true nature of God, the inner workings of God.

No on these points after thinking about what you wrote here, I do think that we are saying the same thing but using differing language. The language I used is Tertullian's in that the economic Trinity is the relations within the Godhead, and how those relations operated in salvation history, i.e. the workings of the Persons of the Godhead. The Father sends the Son, the Son is born of a Woman, the Holy Spirit by His power conceives the Son in the Woman. The Son is baptized, the Holy Spirit descends upon the Son, and the Father says: "This is my Son in whom I'm well pleased."

Anyway I can see how one can use the language of "appearance" in the definition. But I would say that it is a limited definition, as the classical definition speaks also of the internal relations of the Divine Persons as well.

Since you didn't want to read the links provided I will post them here.

The dictionary of Theology on the CARM website states: The Economic Trinity is the doctrine concerning how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to each other and the world. The word, economic, is used from the Greek oikonomikos, which means relating to arrangement of activities. Each person has different roles within the Godhead, and each has different roles in relationship to the world (some roles overlap).

RC Sproul defines it as: When we speak of the economic Trinity, we are dealing with roles. We distinguish among the three persons of the Godhead in terms of what we call the economy of God. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world for our redemption. It is the Son who acquires our redemption for us. It is the Spirit who applies that redemption to us. We do not have three gods. We have one God in three persons, and the three persons are distinguished in terms of what They do.

Again, I can understand now the usage of "appearance", i.e. what we see in Scripture; but I do think that Tertullian emphasis on relation, and how those relations WORK in salvation goes beyond the term "appearance".

 

[Erose]

The problem is that you neglect to read and post some important passages where Thomas puts some serious qualifiers on his notion of omnipresence. You are not being a careful enough of a reader here. Above, for example, he is say8ing God is present because he is the "cause" of their being. That does not mean God is present in the literal sense you are taking it to mean. You remind me of those who carelessly say Thomas taught god is omnipotent, can do anything. Yes, Thomas said and described God as "omnipotent," but he put some qualifiers on it., providing a kind of cannot-do list for God. God, for example, cannot violate that laws of geometry

Ok, I can say the same for you, because obviously you stopped reading at that one objection. Yes Thomas provided more qualifiers to God's omnipresence, which including the one you have given, i.e. power, he also gives two more: presence and essence.

 

[Hoghead1]

Ok, I can say the same for you, because obviously you stopped reading at that one objection. Yes Thomas provided more qualifiers to God's omnipresence, which including the one you have given, i.e. power, he also gives two more: presence and essence.

NO, I didn't stop just there. read the articles I mentioned earlier today. Consider the fact that Thomas insists that nothing can touch God, and likens God to a prince ruling from afar. Even if I did stop with just that one reference, you would still have some explaining to do as to way Thomas says God is "outside" creation and yet you feel Thomas is actually claiming God is omnipresent.

 

[Hoghead1]

No on these points after thinking about what you wrote here, I do think that we are saying the same thing but using differing language. The language I used is Tertullian's in that the economic Trinity is the relations within the Godhead, and how those relations operated in salvation history, i.e. the workings of the Persons of the Godhead. The Father sends the Son, the Son is born of a Woman, the Holy Spirit by His power conceives the Son in the Woman. The Son is baptized, the Holy Spirit descends upon the Son, and the Father says: "This is my Son in whom I'm well pleased."

Anyway I can see how one can use the language of "appearance" in the definition. But I would say that it is a limited definition, as the classical definition speaks also of the internal relations of the Divine Persons as well.

Since you didn't want to read the links provided I will post them here.

The dictionary of Theology on the CARM website states: The Economic Trinity is the doctrine concerning how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to each other and the world. The word, economic, is used from the Greek oikonomikos, which means relating to arrangement of activities. Each person has different roles within the Godhead, and each has different roles in relationship to the world (some roles overlap).

RC Sproul defines it as: When we speak of the economic Trinity, we are dealing with roles. We distinguish among the three persons of the Godhead in terms of what we call the economy of God. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world for our redemption. It is the Son who acquires our redemption for us. It is the Spirit who applies that redemption to us. We do not have three gods. We have one God in three persons, and the three persons are distinguished in terms of what They do.

Again, I can understand now the usage of "appearance", i.e. what we see in Scripture; but I do think that Tertullian emphasis on relation, and how those relations WORK in salvation goes beyond the term "appearance".

Well, I simply do not trust those definitions. As I said before, what you are talking about here is the immanent trinity. I also wonder whether the sources you cite are not in fact arguing that we know what God is doing in the world, but not what God actually is, which is what economic, as opposed to the immanent, theory of the trinity claim.

 

[Hoghead1]

Ok, thanks for clarifying your position. I was hoping that I didn't waste a lot of time arguing against something that wasn't there and thankfully I wasn't. So here we go.

Concerning this point, I have pointed out were Thomas explicitly says that God is omnipresent in Part1, Q8, A3 he says: Therefore, God is in all things by His power, inasmuch as all things are subject to His power; He is by His presence in all things, as all things are bare and open to His eyes; He is in all things by His essence, inasmuch as He is present to all as the cause of their being.

Well you are right concerning God's transcendence. But you only look at a partial of what Thomas commented on how He is present in all things here is what Thomas wrote in P1, Q8, A3, which is an expansion from his comment I quoted above:

I answer that, God is said to be in a thing in two ways; in one way after the manner of an efficient cause; and thus He is in all things created by Him; in another way he is in things as the object of operation is in the operator; and this is proper to the operations of the soul, according as the thing known is in the one who knows; and the thing desired in the one desiring. In this second way Godis especially in the rational creature which knows and loves Him actually or habitually. And because the rational creature possesses this prerogative by grace, as will be shown later (12). He is said to be thus in the saints by grace.

But how He is in other things created by Him, may be considered from human affairs. A king, for example, is said to be in the whole kingdom by his power, although he is not everywhere present. Again a thing is said to be by its presence in other things which are subject to its inspection; as things in a house are said to be present to anyone, who nevertheless may not be in substance in every part of the house. Lastly, a thing is said to be by way of substance or essence in that place in which its substance may be. Now there were some (the Manichees) who said that spiritual and incorporeal things were subject to the divine power; but that visible and corporeal things were subject to the power of a contrary principle. Therefore against these it is necessary to say that God is in all things by His power.

But others, though they believed that all things were subject to the divine power, still did not allow that divine providence extended to these inferior bodies, and in the person of these it is said, "He walketh about the poles of the heavens; and He doth not consider our things [Vulgate: 'He doth not consider . . . and He walketh,' etc.]" (Job 22:14). Against these it is necessary to say that God is in all things by His presence.

Further, others said that, although all things are subject to God's providence, still all things are not immediately created by God; but that He immediately created the first creatures, and these created the others. Against these it is necessary to say that He is in all things by His essence.

So you are only referring to Thomas' comment about God being present in all things by His power, but Thomas expands on this and states that God is also present in all things, by His presence essence.

So yes Thomas teaches Omnipresence.


You are right concerning God cannot have a "real relation" to creation; but you are missing the point that the creature has, must have a "real relation" to God. In this Thomas writes in P1,Q28,A1:
Reply to Objection 3. As the creature proceeds from God in diversity of nature, God is outside the order of the whole creation, nor does any relation to the creature arise from His nature; for He does not produce the creature by necessity of His nature, but by His intellect and will, as is above explained (14, 3 and 4; 19, 8). Therefore there is no real relation in God to the creature; whereas in creatures there is a real relation to God; because creatures are contained under the divine order, and their very nature entails dependence on God. On the other hand, the divine processions are in one and the same nature. Hence no parallel exists.


I really have no idea how you can get to the point of claiming Thomas did not teach God's omnipresence when he wrote a whole question, with four articles on the matter, claiming otherwise.

Yes, but look at what Thomas said. He likens God to a prince ruling from afar. Also, note: He stresses it is the power of God that is present, not God per se.
Whether or not creatures have a "real relationship" to God isn't the issue here. The issue is whether or not God does, and Thomas states clearly that he doesn't.

 

[ScottA]

And so when you say "trinity" you mean -- "one God in three persons"?

No, that would be looking at it backwards, or perhaps sideways, or upside down. One God, yes, but three persons is a contradiction in terms. I mean...if I am One with God...then I am not my own person. Does that make sense?

 

[Hoghead1]

No, that would be looking at it backwards, or perhaps sideways, or upside down. One God, yes, but three persons is a contradiction in terms. I mean...if I am One with God...then I am not my own person. Does that make sense?

You have to remember that the term "person," as used in the historic Trinitarian formulations, has a much different meaning than the terms "person" and "personality" have today.

 

[ScottA]

You have to remember that the term "person," as used in the historic Trinitarian formulations, has a much different meaning than the terms "person" and "personality" have today.

Good point. All language has indeed been confused.