What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[Erose]

What are you labeling as the economic model?

The economic model is not labelled in the diagram. That is the point.

Normally, it means the view that the threeness is just in our perception.

No it doesn't. The economic model as outlined by Tertullian is concerned with the Divine relationships.

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually I showed you that you are wrong. Thomas is quite specific in the First Part, Question 8 that God IS omnipresent. I actually supplied you with a quote from that question where Thomas specifically states this to be true.

Look all I can tell you is that you are wrong. I really have no idea how you can get from Thomas claiming that God is omnipresent that He taught God is not omnipresent. I really cannot figure out your logic here.

Yes, and I supplied you with numerous quotes that showed his understanding of omnipresence isn't omnipresence in the literal sense of the term. He means God is present in that God is the cause of things. At one point, he likens God to a prince ruling from afar. You feel his power here, but not the prince.

 

[Hoghead1]

The economic model is not labelled in the diagram. That is the point.

No it doesn't. The economic model as outlined by Tertullian is concerned with the Divine relationships.

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

 

[Erose]

No, I do not. I'm right on target here.

Nope don't see it.

Did it ever occur to you that you might be off target here?

Not really.

Have you ever read anything about the psychological models of the Trinity

Yes I have, both the classical and some of the modern ideas. Not a fan of either one. Personally I'm a big fan of Augustine. I think he went way too far with his psychological model. The best model, which he also proposed (I believe) of the Trinity is the Divine Charity model (not sure if it is offically called that but that is what I have called it since I read it in his great book on the Trinity.)

or what Sabellius actually claimed?

Yes, yes I have. You see I was once a modalist, so I spent a great deal studying the subject. Actually both modalism and the Trinity.

 

[Erose]

Yes, and I supplied you with numerous quotes that showed his understanding of omnipresence isn't omnipresence in the literal sense of the term. He means God is present in that God is the cause of things. At one point, he likens God to a prince ruling from afar. You feel his power here, but not the prince.

Where is these numerous quotes that you speak of? I am beginning to think you don't really understand what omnipresence is. It seems that you have pantheistic understanding, which isn't the Christian understanding at all.

 

[Erose]

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

Maybe that is how the circles that you bounce around in defines it, but the classical understanding as proposed by Tertullian is based upon the relationships within the Godhead, and how those relationships work within Salvation history. As in Economic, how things work or operate.

Here is some links:

https://carm.org/dictionary-economic-trinity

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/whats-difference-between-ontological-and-economic-trinity/

 

[hedrick]

For what it's worth, Schaff thinks Sabellius taught a kind of Trinity. In practice I've normally heard the term modalism used in a modern context (as opposed to discussion the history of doctrine) to critique views of the Trinity that the speaker considers insufficient, since it's easier to call someone who simply denies it non-Trinitarian or Unitarian. But perhaps others use it differently.

 

[Erose]

For what it's worth, Schaff thinks Sabellius taught a kind of Trinity. In practice I've normally heard the term modalism used in a modern context (as opposed to discussion the history of doctrine) to critique views of the Trinity that the speaker considers insufficient, since it's easier to call someone who simply denies it non-Trinitarian or Unitarian. But perhaps others use it differently.

The problem with Schaff's point is that we don't have any of Sabellius' writings, if he had any, all we have is the responses against his heresy, and if those who responded against Sabellius are correct, then yes he was a modalist.

 

[Hoghead1]

Where is these numerous quotes that you speak of? I am beginning to think you don't really understand what omnipresence is. It seems that you have pantheistic understanding, which isn't the Christian understanding at all.

Well, in defense of myself, I have a doctorate in theology. My dissertation, which was published in book form by Susquehanna University Press, spent considerable time addressing Aquinas and neo-Thomists. You wanted specific references. OK. Read First Part, Question 28, Reply to Objection 3. You will easily see he clearly states that God is "outside" creation and is said to have no "real relationship" to creation. This passage is widely known to Thomists and neo-Thomists. So I think maybe you should do a reread of Thomas.
Also, I would call myself a panentheist. I am a process theologian , and process is a major, well-respected movement in contemporary Christian thought.

 

[Hoghead1]

Maybe that is how the circles that you bounce around in defines it, but the classical understanding as proposed by Tertullian is based upon the relationships within the Godhead, and how those relationships work within Salvation history. As in Economic, how things work or operate.

Here is some links:

https://carm.org/dictionary-economic-trinity

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/whats-difference-between-ontological-and-economic-trinity/

The economic theory of the Trinity states we perceive God as three, but we do not perceive of the actual inner nature or ontological structure of God. So it's really how God appears to us, not what God is in his own nature. That was not Tertullian's view.

 

[Hoghead1]

Nope don't see it.

Not really.

Yes I have, both the classical and some of the modern ideas. Not a fan of either one. Personally I'm a big fan of Augustine. I think he went way too far with his psychological model. The best model, which he also proposed (I believe) of the Trinity is the Divine Charity model (not sure if it is offically called that but that is what I have called it since I read it in his great book on the Trinity.)

Yes, yes I have. You see I was once a modalist, so I spent a great deal studying the subject. Actually both modalism and the Trinity.

My point is that his psychological model is modalistic, just one person. For someone who studied the subject for a long time, I'm surprised you missed that.

 

[Erose]

Well, in defense of myself, I have a doctorate in theology. My dissertation, which was published in book form by Susquehanna University Press, spent considerable time addressing Aquinas and neo-Thomists.

Congratulations.

You wanted specific references. OK. Read First Part, Question 28, Reply to Objection 3. You will easily see he clearly states that God is "outside" creation and is said to have no "real relationship" to creation. This passage is widely known to Thomists and neo-Thomists. So I think maybe you should do a reread of Thomas.

You do realize that Thomas is speaking of a certain type of relation right? You are making a proposal that for the only way for God to relation to creation is to be part of it. Thomas rightly says no, no, no. God can have a relation as Thomas states in the passage I quoted above, because all thing exist and subsist through God's will and intellect. God transcends the universe, and the Christian God has to, but God is present in the universe, because the universe only exists and is sustained in existence by God's will and intellect. Because of that God is omnipresent, because all things are within His will and intellect.

Look you made some bold claims about what Thomas taught, and these have been easily refuted. Again I have no idea how you can get to the point of claiming that because Thomas taught that God is omnipresent, that he really taught that God isn't omnipresent. That really makes no sense on any level.

Also, I would call myself a panentheist. I am a process theologian , and process is a major, well-respected movement in contemporary Christian thought.

Among some circles but not all. I'm not a big fan personally.

 

[Erose]

The economic theory of the Trinity states we perceive God as three, but we do not perceive of the actual inner nature or ontological structure of God. So it's really how God appears to us, not what God is in his own nature. That was not Tertullian's view.

Read the second chapter of "Against Praxeas". Seriously read it. You are way off base here, and your digging in your heels being wrong. I gave you two links to two well respected Protestant sites, not Catholic ones. I don't know, maybe you are referring to how Economic trinity is defined in process theology, maybe that is were we are not see eye to eye. The definition I gave you is the traditional one, as proposed by Tertullian in the second chapter of his work.

 

[Hoghead1]

Congratulations.

You do realize that Thomas is speaking of a certain type of relation right? You are making a proposal that for the only way for God to relation to creation is to be part of it. Thomas rightly says no, no, no. God can have a relation as Thomas states in the passage I quoted above, because all thing exist and subsist through God's will and intellect. God transcends the universe, and the Christian God has to, but God is present in the universe, because the universe only exists and is sustained in existence by God's will and intellect. Because of that God is omnipresent, because all things are within His will and intellect.

Look you made some bold claims about what Thomas taught, and these have been easily refuted. Again I have no idea how you can get to the point of claiming that because Thomas taught that God is omnipresent, that he really taught that God isn't omnipresent. That really makes no sense on any level.

Among some circles but not all. I'm not a big fan personally.

I just showed you where Thomas specifically stated that God is "outside" creation and has "no real relationship" to it. I would encourage you to go read it. I also encourage you to read what he has to say on "God's existence in things." I already explained to you what he has to say there, but you should maybe go read it for yourself.

 

[Hoghead1]

Read the second chapter of "Against Praxeas". Seriously read it. You are way off base here, and your digging in your heels being wrong. I gave you two links to two well respected Protestant sites, not Catholic ones. I don't know, maybe you are referring to how Economic trinity is defined in process theology, maybe that is were we are not see eye to eye. The definition I gave you is the traditional one, as proposed by Tertullian in the second chapter of his work.

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.

 

[Erose]

I just showed you where Thomas specifically stated that God is "outside" creation and has "no real relationship" to it. I would encourage you to go read it. I also encourage you to read what he has to say on "God's existence in things." I already explained to you what he has to say there, but you should maybe go read it for yourself.

And I quoted you where Thomas does state that God transcends the universe and is still omnipresent. It can't get any more plain.

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Q[7], A[1]). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly. Q8, A1

 

[Cappadocious]

This discussion all seems weird to me, because this is elementary church history or doctrine. I’m going to give you traditional Catholic definitions. The East may not precisely agree, but it’s similar. I'm taking this from the section on the Trinity in the Summa, from newadvent.org.

If you want a clear definition, Aquinas defines a person as “a subsistent individual of a rational nature.” Hypostasis is more general, as it is not necessarily rational. However since God is rational, in the context of the Trinity hypostasis and person are the same. (Aquinas also notes differences between God and humans, so that you have to be careful about the exact sense of individual and rational when referring to God.)

With normal people, it’s obvious that we are subsistent individuals, and one hopes most of us are rational. However the question is whether God is three subsistent individuals. That kind of sounds like tritheism, the criticism Hoghead1 was making.

Aquinas, however, wants to use the classical definition of person, but he also wants to say that in the Trinity the persons are defined only by their relations. So the arguments is this: persons are by definition individuals. But what it means to be individual depends upon your nature. For humans it means having separate flesh, bones and soul, because that’s the nature of humans.

But, he argues, distinction in God is only by relation. In particular, the Father is paternity, the Son is begotten from him and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. [I’m extrapolating from what he actually said.] Therefore for the divine persons, distinction and individuality come from their relations to each other, the Father being source, etc.

He connects this with traditional substance metaphysics by saying that “… this is to signify relation by way of substance, and such a relation is a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature, although in truth that which subsists in the divine nature is the divine nature itself.” Thus while person / hypostasis and relation are often used as synonyms, in fact person “signifies relation not as such, but by way of a substance--which is a hypostasis.” My dummy version of this is that you can’t have relations in the abstract. It has to be between two things. But in this case the things involved are distinguished only by their relations with each other.

At least this is what I get from him, given that some of his metaphysical statements don’t make much sense to me.

My comment would be that this seems like the best one can do given the starting point of traditional definitions. But I’m not convinced that bringing substance into it helps much. I’d prefer simply to say that God is personal and has the experience of personal relationship, but I don’t think I’d try to go further in defining it metaphysically.

However the Trinity exists not just as a way of saying that God as personal, but as a consequence of a specific history of Christological arguments. But I'm even less convinced that substance metaphysics is the right way to deal with the Incarnation, even though Aquinas manages to interpret it in a way that deals with some of the potential shortcomings.

What is a subsistent individual?

 

[Erose]

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.

Ok keep being wrong then. I think I'm going to try to sleep. Seriously check out those links.

 

[Hoghead1]

Ok keep being wrong then. I think I'm going to try to sleep. Seriously check out those links.

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.

 

[Hoghead1]

And I quoted you where Thomas does state that God transcends the universe and is still omnipresent. It can't get any more plain.

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Q[7], A[1]). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly. Q8, A1

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.