The Trinity

FireDragon76 · Apr 16, 2019

harko said:
I sometimes get caught up in modalism type thinking!

Pretty easy to do considering western Christianity typically has spent less time contemplating this doctrine. And the way it's typically represented visually is misleading, potentially implying modalism or superiority of nature over persons.

There's some good stuff in C. Baxter Kruger's books. It's also worth looking into Athanasius directly.

mister rogers · Apr 16, 2019

Not sure I know what you mean by "So, what?" Yes, the Holy Spirit was there as well (Genesis 1:2), but John didn't address that in the passage. But no, "the Word was God". Jesus is the Word incarnate, God incarnate. Jesus is God. The Word (He) was WITH God in the beginning (John 1:1-2). Jesus said he was with the Father in the beginning (John 17:5).

mister rogers · May 2, 2019

Very convincing. lol

Akita Suggagaki · Jun 12, 2022

devin553344 said:
There is a good wikipedia article on the trinity that helped me: Trinity

It explains that they are three persons of the same substance.

In honor of Trinity Sunday let's reflect. I like this part.

Perichoresis (from Greek, "going around", "envelopment") is a term used by some scholars to describe the relationship among the members of the Trinity. The Latin equivalent for this term is circumincessio. This concept refers for its basis to John 10:38,14:11,14:20, where Jesus is instructing the disciples concerning the meaning of his departure. His going to the Father, he says, is for their sake; so that he might come to them when the "other comforter" is given to them. Then, he says, his disciples will dwell in him, as he dwells in the Father, and the Father dwells in him, and the Father will dwell in them. This is so, according to the theory of perichoresis, because the persons of the Trinity "reciprocally contain one another, so that one permanently envelopes and is permanently enveloped by, the other whom he yet envelopes" (Hilary of Poitiers, Concerning the Trinity 3:1).[91] The most prominent exponent of perichoresis was John of Damascus (d. 749) who employed the concept as a technical term to describe both the interpenetration of the divine and human natures of Christ and the relationship between the hypostases of the Trinity.[92]

Perichoresis effectively excludes the idea that God has parts, but rather is a simple being. It also harmonizes well with the doctrine that the Christian's union with the Son in his humanity brings him into union with one who contains in himself, in Paul's words, "all the fullness of deity" and not a part.[e] Perichoresis provides an intuitive figure of what this might mean. The Son, the eternal Word, is from all eternity the dwelling place of God; he is the "Father's house", just as the Son dwells in the Father and the Spirit; so that, when the Spirit is "given", then it happens as Jesus said, "I will not leave you as orphans; for I will come to you."[John 14:18]

What does all that mean for us?

We also can live in God as God lives in us. Christ invites us into the Trinity through himself.

Hillsage · Jun 12, 2022

harko said:
What is your belief of the trinity that helps you understand the 3 in 1 concept of God.
The Father is not the son , The Son and the Father is not the Holy Spirit, Yet all are one God.
How do you with our limited human knowledge of God get through this one?

I was raised by 'the church' to believe that some things were too hard to understand.
But early in the faith I learned that we too are a trinity. We as humans are 'spirit, soul and body'. Coming to a good understanding of that trinity helped me to begin a path of study 50 years ago.

1TH 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately 'the church' doesn't even understand that trinity either. Some can't separate the spirit and soul as two entities.

Getting back to GOD; then my old church would use a verse, like the one below, to tell us it was a mystery man couldn't figure out;

KJV 1TI 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

As the scripture above confirms; "God" being "manifest in the flesh" is a huge part of my personal understanding. Because, according to Jesus, God doesn't HAVE flesh.

JOH 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

So, now we have a dilemma. We have a 'church' which says Jesus was fully God and fully man. But scripture disagrees;

PHI 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
PHI 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he WAS in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

So, what was "the form of God"? Jesus said GOD IS SPIRIT. That means that 'in the beginning The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit were SPIRIT.

But, as Philipians above confirms; The WORD didn't consider being only spirit, as something that humans made of FLESH could relate to. So THE WORD gave up being 'a spirit' in the trinity. The WORD/spirit became the FLESH body of the triune man Jesus and dwelt among the rest of us 'triune' spirit, soul, FLESH humans.

JOH 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

THOUGHTS SO FAR? And if you do, back them with scripture like I did.

Akita Suggagaki · Jun 12, 2022

Hillsage said:
So THE WORD gave up being 'a spirit' in the trinity.

Didn't give up being a spirit but extended spirit to flesh.

Jesus is YHWH · Jun 12, 2022

harko said:
What is your belief of the trinity that helps you understand the 3 in 1 concept of God.
The Father is not the son , The Son and the Father is not the Holy Spirit, Yet all are one God.
How do you with our limited human knowledge of God get through this one?

Well for starters nothing in creation can be compared to God since He is Unique and scripture declares there is none like Him . In fact God rebukes man in the book of Job 37-40 for trying to do just that .

But God has declared a few things about His Being.

1- God is One
2- God is the Father
3- God is the Son
4- God is the Holy Spirit

God is Tri and Unity. God is Tri-Unity, Triune, Trinity , Tri-Personal etc

RickReads · Jun 13, 2022

Jesus is YHWH said:
Well for starters nothing in creation can be compared to God since He is Unique and scripture declares there is none like Him . In fact God rebukes man in the book of Job 37-40 for trying to do just that .

But God has declared a few things about His Being.

1- God is One
2- God is the Father
3- God is the Son
4- God is the Holy Spirit

God is Tri and Unity. God is Tri-Unity, Triune, Trinity , Tri-Personal etc

The words triune and trinity have slightly different meaning. Triune is the better term.

Hillsage · Jun 13, 2022

Akita Suggagaki said:
Didn't give up being a spirit but extended spirit to flesh.

At the bottom of my #85 post, I asked you all to answer with scripture if you want to respond to me. I am not going to give 'religious opinions' before His throne, to support my heretical beliefs. I have no use for indoctrinated opinions, and neither should you.

JESUS disagrees with YOUR opinion, but He certainly agrees with mine.

LUK 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Fervent · Jun 13, 2022

I think of the original analogy in characters in a play, or movie. Think of Harrison Ford as an example, as I think he manages the task of acting in a way that few can. Indiana Jones is not Harrison Ford, nor is Harrison Ford Indiana Jones but there is an essence that they share. Indiana Jones is not simply a projection of Harrison Ford, nor is Indiana Jones simply a part of Harrison Ford but the essence they share is inseperable. Indiana Jones is a person, and Harrison Ford is a person, but they are one being. There is no Indiana Jones apart from Harrison Ford. Now, of course, this is an anaolgy as is anything we can say about God and so it fails if stretched too far but I find the analogy supremely helpful in understanding the mystery enough to be comfortable leaving the rest of the mystery in tact.

RickReads · Jun 15, 2022

Fervent said:
I think of the original analogy in characters in a play, or movie. Think of Harrison Ford as an example, as I think he manages the task of acting in a way that few can. Indiana Jones is not Harrison Ford, nor is Harrison Ford Indiana Jones but there is an essence that they share. Indiana Jones is not simply a projection of Harrison Ford, nor is Indiana Jones simply a part of Harrison Ford but the essence they share is inseperable. Indiana Jones is a person, and Harrison Ford is a person, but they are one being. There is no Indiana Jones apart from Harrison Ford. Now, of course, this is an anaolgy as is anything we can say about God and so it fails if stretched too far but I find the analogy supremely helpful in understanding the mystery enough to be comfortable leaving the rest of the mystery in tact.

You are talking about a persona. Persona is the Latin root for the word person. In the days of the early church fathers, the word person did not exist. A persona was an actor's mask.

Der Alte · Jun 16, 2022

RickReads said:
You are talking about a persona. Persona is the Latin root for the word person. In the days of the early church fathers, the word person did not exist. A persona was an actor's mask.

Meaningless scribbling unless you can provide credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence.

Der Alte · Jun 16, 2022

RickReads said:
The words triune and trinity have slightly different meaning. Triune is the better term.

Triune is an adjective and Trinity is a noun.

RickReads · Jun 16, 2022

Der Alte said:
Meaningless scribbling unless you can provide credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence.

It's a rather basic Latin word that would probably be found in any Latin textbook. The Latin word for a person is homo. Not likely the word that was used when the early church fathers talked about it.

ViaCrucis · Jun 16, 2022

Der Alte said:
Meaningless scribbling unless you can provide credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence.

The use of the Greek word prosopon (plural prosopa) which is translated into Latin as persona (plural personae) was used by the Sabellians to argue that God was one Hypostasis and three prosopa. Which is akin to saying God was one Person with three faces. Like an actor changing masks in a Greek drama.

The meaning of prosopon:
G4383 - prosōpon - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
πρόσωπον - Wiktionary

However, with the Sabellian controversy mostly a thing of the past, the fathers and theologians of the 5th century had no trouble using this word in a strictly Trinitarian way. Thus, for example, the confession of the one undivided Hypostasis and Prosopon of Jesus Christ declared at the Council of Chalcedon,

"εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπὸστασιν"
"in one Prosopon and one Hypostasin"
"in one Person and one Subsistence".

And so the use of prosopa, and thus personae, to refer to the Three Hypostases of the Trinity. Three Persons or Subsistences; one Ousia or Substance/Essence/Being.

The use of prosopon in Trinitarian theology shouldn't be conflated or confused with its use by heretics who used it to deny the Trinity.

As we do not confess a single actor putting on different masks as the Sabellians did; we confess Three Divine Hypostases. Not merely faces, but concrete, real Someones. The Father is His own Person and Hypostasis, distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit (and so on and so forth).

-CryptoLutheran

RickReads · Jun 16, 2022

ViaCrucis said:
The use of the Greek word prosopon (plural prosopa) which is translated into Latin as persona (plural personae) was used by the Sabellians to argue that God was one Hypostasis and three prosopa. Which is akin to saying God was one Person with three faces. Like an actor changing masks in a Greek drama.

The meaning of prosopon:
G4383 - prosōpon - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
πρόσωπον - Wiktionary

However, with the Sabellian controversy mostly a thing of the past, the fathers and theologians of the 5th century had no trouble using this word in a strictly Trinitarian way. Thus, for example, the confession of the one undivided Hypostasis and Prosopon of Jesus Christ declared at the Council of Chalcedon,

"εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπὸστασιν"
"in one Prosopon and one Hypostasin"
"in one Person and one Subsistence".

And so the use of prosopa, and thus personae, to refer to the Three Hypostases of the Trinity. Three Persons or Subsistences; one Ousia or Substance/Essence/Being.

The use of prosopon in Trinitarian theology shouldn't be conflated or confused with its use by heretics who used it to deny the Trinity.

As we do not confess a single actor putting on different masks as the Sabellians did; we confess Three Divine Hypostases. Not merely faces, but concrete, real Someones. The Father is His own Person and Hypostasis, distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit (and so on and so forth).

-CryptoLutheran

Do you have any info on the church fathers who used the term in the second century? It's been a real long time but I think there are two from the second century who wrote about the trinity using the term and they weren't Sabellians.

ViaCrucis · Jun 16, 2022

RickReads said:
Do you have any info on the church fathers who used the term in the second century? It's been a real long time but I think there are two from the second century who wrote about the trinity using the term and they weren't Sabellians.

For Latin the only one I can think of would be Tertullian in the early third century; who probably did use it (though I won't say that confidently at all) in his works against the Sabellians.

Looking at Tertullian's Against Praxeas he does use the word in Chapter 6,

"This power and disposition of the Divine Intelligence is set forth also in the Scriptures under the name of Σοφία, Wisdom; for what can be better entitled to the name of Wisdom than the Reason or the Word of God? Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the character of a Second Person" - Against Praxeas, Ch. 6

In Latin:
"Haec vis et haec divini sensus dispositio apud scripturas etiam in sophiae nomine ostenditur. quid enim sapientius ratione dei sive sermone? itaque sophiam quoque exaudi, ut secundam personam conditam"

And later in the same chapter,

"says Wisdom, 'I was present with Him; and when He made His strong places upon the winds, which are the clouds above; and when He secured the fountains, (and all things) which are beneath the sky, I was by, arranging all things with Him; I was by, in whom He delighted; and daily, too, did I rejoice in His presence.'"

The bold portion, in Latin:

"cottidie autem oblectabar in persona ipsius."

So Tertullian speaks of the Logos as a Secundum Personam, a Second Person (distinct from the Father) and quotes Proverbs 8 where Holy Wisdom (identified by Tertullian here with Jesus, the Logos) says that she/He delights in persona ipsius, in God the Father's Person.

-CryptoLutheran

RickReads · Jun 16, 2022

ViaCrucis said:
For Latin the only one I can think of would be Tertullian in the early third century; who probably did use it (though I won't say that confidently at all) in his works against the Sabellians.

Looking at Tertullian's Against Praxeas he does use the word in Chapter 6,

"This power and disposition of the Divine Intelligence is set forth also in the Scriptures under the name of Σοφία, Wisdom; for what can be better entitled to the name of Wisdom than the Reason or the Word of God? Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the character of a Second Person" - Against Praxeas, Ch. 6

In Latin:
"Haec vis et haec divini sensus dispositio apud scripturas etiam in sophiae nomine ostenditur. quid enim sapientius ratione dei sive sermone? itaque sophiam quoque exaudi, ut secundam personam conditam"

And later in the same chapter,

"says Wisdom, 'I was present with Him; and when He made His strong places upon the winds, which are the clouds above; and when He secured the fountains, (and all things) which are beneath the sky, I was by, arranging all things with Him; I was by, in whom He delighted; and daily, too, did I rejoice in His presence.'"

The bold portion, in Latin:

"cottidie autem oblectabar in persona ipsius."

So Tertullian speaks of the Logos as a Secundum Personam, a Second Person (distinct from the Father) and quotes Proverbs 8 where Holy Wisdom (identified by Tertullian here with Jesus, the Logos) says that she/He delights in persona ipsius, in God the Father's Person.

-CryptoLutheran

As I understand it a lot of them wrote in Greek and preached in Latin. Theophilus appears to have been one of the ones I was trying to remember. The quote below is a good indication of how the Godhead was understood in 169 AD. This pattern is pretty close to the one I adopted as my own years ago.

"For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place."

Jesus is YHWH · Jun 16, 2022

Hillsage said:
At the bottom of my #85 post, I asked you all to answer with scripture if you want to respond to me. I am not going to give 'religious opinions' before His throne, to support my heretical beliefs. I have no use for indoctrinated opinions, and neither should you.

JESUS disagrees with YOUR opinion, but He certainly agrees with mine.

LUK 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Yes Jesus remained a man permanently since the Incarnation forward . He is forever God in the flesh , a man having a human body now glorified.

ViaCrucis · Jun 16, 2022

RickReads said:
As I understand it a lot of them wrote in Greek and preached in Latin. Theophilus appears to have been one of the ones I was trying to remember. The quote below is a good indication of how the Godhead was understood in 169 AD. This pattern is pretty close to the one I adopted as my own years ago.

"For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place."

Like in St. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho and also in the works of Tertullian we see language still in developement, but it's language that ultimately reaches maturity in the 4th century with Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, as well as the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. By which I mean, for example, there are certainly things that Justin, or Theophilus, etc said that without any more clarification and refinement of language could be taken in a problematically heretical position.

For example, even here in Theophilus of Antioch one could, arguably, claim that "But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot His Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation" leans toward Arianism. It doesn't, but an Arian could try to make that argument.

Which is why we actually don't say that the Word is begotten when God determined to create (which could still be argued by the Arian that the Son is a creature, rather than the Uncreated); instead we speak of the eternal generation of the Son, i.e. ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, "of the Father begotten before all the ages" or "eternally begotten of the Father".

So I'm not criticizing Theophilus, or you or taking issue with anything; only pointing toward the fact that the works of Theophilus et al are helpful here because they show us the trajectory of theological language and reflection that reaches a certain maturity later on. By mature I mean a more technical and clarified language so as to not allow misunderstanding, language that cuts off false ideas like Arianism or Sabellianism as even possible.

-CryptoLutheran

The Trinity

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Well-Known Member

my Lord and my God !

Well-Known Member

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

my Lord and my God !

Confessional Lutheran

Similar threads