What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[Hoghead1]

I think we largely agree, though I think mainstream theology, at least in the West, managed to avoid tritheism. At least if you think of things in their terms. I think Augustine's vision of the Trinity manages to have a distinction without tritheism.

No, not when so many view the Trinity as three separate, unique personalities. Augustine had real problems with the Trinity. Either the distinctions between the members were so emphasized that there appeared to be three gods, or they were described as so alike that you couldn't tell them apart. The problem is that Augustine went on an arithmetic sense of oneness, one meaning all alike. He did not use an organic sense of unity, where there are multiple parts, internal complexity. He was committed to the notion that God is a monad, a wholly simple, immutable, nonrelational being.
If you thought of God differently, as an organic unity, then you might come up with a very different Trinity. You would have no trouble seeing God as a synthesis of personalities. God is the eminently sensitive one, empathizes with all creaturely feeling, and therefore is a synthesis of all personalities. If you want to consider the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit as three personalities, you could then say they constitute a kind of group mind, a meta-personality, which is the one God.

 

[hedrick]

I think the picture you get from De Trinitate is in fact an organic unity. The only distinction between the persons is their relationships. I think what he's going after is pretty much what you describe.

 

[civilwarbuff]

"Substance" is a concept from Hellenic philosophy, specifically Aristotle. You will not find an equivalent term in Scripture.

Do you have the definition?

 

[Hoghead1]

While i agree about substance, I think you can regard "of one substance with the Father" as a paraphrase of John 1's "with Gid and was God." At Nicea, one substance was a political compromise, which worked because it could be understood different ways, but would not be accepted by overt Arians. Thus I think we can accept it without being committed to any particular metaphysical path. To me it means that the Logos really is God, and not a created thing, as the Arians seem to have said. I think John would have agreed with that.

No, no. "Substance" is a Hellenic concept.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Quite the contrary. In order to survive and grow, the church had to acquire a strong philosophical, intellectual dimension. Otherwise, it would have collapsed into a thoughtless faith for simple minds. Unfortunately, many Christians did become very anti-intellectual, and this resulted in bigotry, intolerance, undue fear, superstition, tyranny, you name it.

Mat_19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think the picture you get from De Trinitate is in fact an organic unity. The only distinction between the persons is their relationships. I think what he's going after is pretty much what you describe.

No, there is no organic unity there, because you will find passages where he describes the persons as identical.

 

[hedrick]

If you thought of God differently, as an organic unity, then you might come up with a very different Trinity. You would have no trouble seeing God as a synthesis of personalities. God is the eminently sensitive one, empathizes with all creaturely feeling, and therefore is a synthesis of all personalities. If you want to consider the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit as three personalities, you could then say they constitute a kind of group mind, a meta-personality, which is the one God.

I see the point. After all, Father and Son have to have a relationship, otherwise the whole concept makes no sense. Your view can be seen as a restatement of the Eastern way of speaking about the Trinity. But I’ve always considered three personalities as going a bit too far towards tritheism. Classically, the Trinity has one will and one action. I believe what Augustine was getting at is something closer to three ways of relating to himself. Not quite as distinct as three personalities. The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to a three-fold consciousness. I’m more comfortable with that than three consciousnesses, which is what I think of when you speak of three personalities.

 

[Hoghead1]

Do you have the definition?

"Substance" was thought of as something wholly independent and unchangeable. Hence, Aristotle says that "a substance cannot be present in a subject." In Plato, the divine, the "really real," is a wholly immaterial, simple, immutable realm. In later substance philosophy, such as Descartes, this same point is very much stressed. Hence, Descartes says that substances require only God in order for them to exist. Reality consists of separate, independent events. I would be sitting here, doping these same things, even if you never existed, in other words.

 

[Hoghead1]

I see the point. After all, Father and Son have to have a relationship, otherwise the whole concept makes no sense. Your view can be seen as a restatement of the Eastern way of speaking about the Trinity. But I’ve always considered three personalities as going a bit too far towards tritheism. Classically, the Trinity has one will and one action. I believe what Augustine was getting at is something closer to three ways of relating to himself. Not quite as distinct as three personalities. The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to a three-fold consciousness. I’m more comfortable with that than three consciousnesses, which is what I think of when you speak of three personalities.

Well, I was only making a suggestion. There are other options as well. Yes, Augustine did seem much closer to three ways of relating to himself. This is interesting, because he is actually moving into modalism, like Tertullian and also Calvin in their psychological models of the Trinity. I have no trouble with modalism whatsoever.

 

[hedrick]

I consider modalism as when you say the distinction is only in the economy. I believe Augustine and Calvin saw the distinction between the persons as inherent, not just how they interact with us. For Augustine at least it was how they related to each other.

 

[Hoghead1]

I consider modalism as when you say the distinction is only in the economy. I believe Augustine and Calvin saw the distinction between the persons as inherent, not just how they interact with us. For Augustine at least it was how they related to each other.

The question is what they saw or included under the term "person." They definitely did not mean personality in our sense of teh term. Their psychological models present the "persons" as aspects of a lager, all-inclusive personality or mind.

 

[ICXC-NIKA]

The Nicene Creed is crystal clear.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Nicene Creed is crystal clear.

In what is this post in regard to?

 

[Tree of Life]

This thread is not intended for anyone who rejects the Trinity because people that reject the trinity might give a different definition for it - one that even Trinitarians reject - so that does not address the question.

I believe "One God in three Persons" as the "blessed Trinity", eternal, infinite all powerful all knowing -- all three persons. Yet all included in the "ONE God" concept, infinitely complex topic - so not trying to reduce it to a nutshell.

How about your belief in the Trinity? How do you define what Trinity is?

Why so many threads on the subject of Trinity lately?

Trinity, in sum, is this:

1. There is one God
2. There are three persons in the one God
3. The three persons are distinct

 

[Hoghead1]

Why so many threads on the subject of Trinity lately?

Trinity, in sum, is this:

1. There is one God
2. There are three persons in the one God
3. The three persons are distinct

The Trinity is a central Christian teaching and a very problematic one, always was. It is no simple matter. For example. from your above formulation, I came away wondering how your view is anything other than tritheism. How are the three distinct personalities only one God? Three men all have in common human nature, but are still three men. Three gods may all have divinity or Deity in common, but are still three gods.

 

[Tree of Life]

The Trinity is a central Christian teaching and a very problematic one, always was. It is no simple matter. For example. from your above formulation, I came away wondering how your view is anything other than tritheism. How are the three distinct personalities only one God? Three men all have in common human nature, but are still three men. Three gods may all have divinity or Deity in common, but are still three gods.

Perhaps you missed #1 and a part of #2.

1. There is one God
2. There are three persons in the one God.

How can three be so united that they are actually one? That, I don't know. I don't believe that the Trinity "makes sense" in that it escapes being a mystery. We don't confess the Trinity because it "makes sense". We confess it because it's what the Scriptures seem to be saying.

The Scriptures clearly affirm that there is only one God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is not the Father. The Scriptures clearly affirm that the Father is God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that the Holy Spirit is God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Put that all together and you get Trinity.

As Bruce Waltke has said, we need to distinguish between ignorance and mystery. Ignorance can be overcome with knowledge. Mystery cannot be overcome, but must be laid hold of by faith. Our problem with understanding the Trinity is not that we lack knowledge. It's that God is fundamentally beyond our comprehension.

 

[hedrick]

The question is what they saw or included under the term "person." They definitely did not mean personality in our sense of teh term. Their psychological models present the "persons" as aspects of a lager, all-inclusive personality or mind.

I believe the answer is different for East and West. For a traditional Western Definition I checked the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org). Here's what they say:

"Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities in the Godhead, it follows that the Divine Persons are none other than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, the Son the Divine Filiation, the Holy Spirit the Divine Procession. Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere accidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is in God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme Substance, transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is both substance and relation. (How it is that there should be in God real relations, though it is altogether impossible that quantity or quality should be found in Him, is a question involving a discussion regarding the metaphysics of relations, which would be out of place in an article such as the present.)"

I think this is pretty far from tri-theism.

 

[Hoghead1]

I believe the answer is different for East and West. For a traditional Western Definition I checked the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org). Here's what they say:

"Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities in the Godhead, it follows that the Divine Persons are none other than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, the Son the Divine Filiation, the Holy Spirit the Divine Procession. Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere accidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is in God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme Substance, transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is both substance and relation. (How it is that there should be in God real relations, though it is altogether impossible that quantity or quality should be found in Him, is a question involving a discussion regarding the metaphysics of relations, which would be out of place in an article such as the present.)"

I think this is pretty far from tri-theism.

It seems the emphasis is upon three separate, unique personalities, which is tritheism. The problem here is that God is first presented as a simple, immutable, nonrelational being. Then the complex, relational machinery of the Trinity is introduced into this monad. Finally, the big cop out: We are positing relationships in God, positing God as a relational being, which contradicts our assumptions, but which we will avoid now discussing.

 

[Hoghead1]

Perhaps you missed #1 and a part of #2.

1. There is one God
2. There are three persons in the one God.

How can three be so united that they are actually one? That, I don't know. I don't believe that the Trinity "makes sense" in that it escapes being a mystery. We don't confess the Trinity because it "makes sense". We confess it because it's what the Scriptures seem to be saying.

The Scriptures clearly affirm that there is only one God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is not the Father. The Scriptures clearly affirm that the Father is God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that the Holy Spirit is God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Put that all together and you get Trinity.
I don't agree at all. I believe the Trinity is paradoxical simply because o f the muddled thinking on the part of the fathers. You are forgetting that the purpose of the Trinitarian formulations was to make sense out of teh Trinity, not present it ass some sort of big mystery. Scripture implies there is a Trinity, but does not clearly work it out, hence the need for later Trinitarian formulas. Since Scripture is not a book of metaphysics, the fathers went on Hellenic metaphysics. This led them to define God as a wholly simple, immutable, nonrelational being. Then they tried to introduce the complex, relational machinery of the Trinity into this monad. The result was confusion and contradiction.

As Bruce Waltke has said, we need to distinguish between ignorance and mystery. Ignorance can be overcome with knowledge. Mystery cannot be overcome, but must be laid hold of by faith. Our problem with understanding the Trinity is not that we lack knowledge. It's that God is fundamentally beyond our comprehension.

 

[Erose]

It seems the emphasis is upon three separate, unique personalities, which is tritheism. The problem here is that God is first presented as a simple, immutable, nonrelational being. Then the complex, relational machinery of the Trinity is introduced into this monad. Finally, the big cop out: We are positing relationships in God, positing God as a relational being, which contradicts our assumptions, but which we will avoid now discussing.

Tritheism by definition would require three beings; the Christian understanding of the Trinity is that there is one being.

It seems that you are trying to establish a materialistic model for the Trinity. Which obviously won't work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk