Need help here! Trinitarians.

hedrick said:

The term "forms" doesn't necessarily imply modalism. What is clearly modalism is saying that the distinction is just different ways God interacts with us, but that there's no distinction within God himself. But "three forms" can certainly imply that the one God exists throughout eternity in three forms. That's not necessarily modalism.

One of the problems with the essense / person language is that although everyone agrees on the language, there's no agreement on what it means. The East tends to start with three things and show how they are so united that they form one. The West tends to start with one and show that there is some kind of distinction within him. In Augustine, it's pretty clear that God is one thing, but that he has enough distinction so that there can be a relationship of love within him. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence." This is an authoritative source on pre-Vatican 2 Catholic theology. You'd have to be very bold to accuse it of being heretical, but this pushes the Western approach fairly far.

Click to expand...

Either way the Father “is not” the Son...etc is correct and saying that the Father “is” the Son...etc is incorrect and heretical. ‘No’?

Tigger45 said:

Either way the Father “is not” the Son...etc is correct and saying that the Father “is” the Son...etc is incorrect and heretical. ‘No’?

Click to expand...

I hate to sound like Clinton, but it depends upon what the meaning of “is” is. There is some distinction, or it wouldn’t be a Trinity. Father and Son aren’t just different names with the exact same meaning. But as the same substance, saying that the Father isn’t the Son may be going too far.

I would point out that the Athanasian Confession is not a counciliar document. Its authority is not clear. I would consider the Nicene Creed to be the authority on the Trinity.

hedrick said:

I hate to sound like Clinton, but it depends upon what the meaning of “is” is. There is some distinction, or it wouldn’t be a Trinity. Father and Son aren’t just different names with the exact same meaning. But as the same substance, saying that the Father isn’t the Son may be going too far.

I would point out that the Athanasian Confession is not a counciliar document. Its authority is not clear. I would consider the Nicene Creed to be the authority on the Trinity.

Click to expand...

Yeah Clinton’s reasoning didn’t work with me either considering he defined it by it’s usage in the sentence.

To me it doesn’t help or serve a purpose to convolute concepts revealed by God in His word about Himself just because ultimately grasping the fullness of God is beyond the infinite and fallen mind of mankind.

Tigger45 said:

To me it doesn’t help or serve a purpose to convolute concepts revealed by God in His word about Himself just because ultimately grasping the fullness of God is beyond the infinite and fallen mind of mankind.

Click to expand...

Here is what God revealed in His word about Himself:

Joh 10:30-31 I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him.

Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you such a long time, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. So how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Heb 1:3 He is the brightness of His glory, the express image of Himself, and upholds all things by the word of His power.

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.’”

And before "heresy hunters" call me a Modalist, I'm a Trinitarian and a firm believer in the Nicene Creed.

God is One. All Christians say they believe He is One.

A) But in what sense is He one?

1) And please don't give a bunch of negative statements parroted from the Athanasian Creed that St Athanasius never wrote.

2) And don't cite a bunch of shared qualities bec all human beings share qualities among themselves and even with animals and yet they're not one human.

B) And what does the word "person" mean in the context of the Trinity without circular logic please?

Disclaimer: I don't care what fellow Christians believe but I care what they teach to non-believers about Christianity.

I’m by no means clear that ancient ontology is the best way to describe God. But since this is Traditional Theology, if we use such terms, I think the Western model of the Trinity says that most of the things that we associate with a person are part of the single essense: will being the one that’s most commonly cited.

There’s only enough distinction to allow a relationship.

This is basically Augustine’s “De Trinitate.”

One of questions people don't ask, but should, is why the Trinity matters in the first place. I think Augustine's treatment fits well with one reasonable answer. If Jesus shows us God, what kind of God does he show? He shows us a God in whom relationship is a key element. And if Jesus reveals what God actually is, relationship didn't start when God created a universe, but was part of God all along.

However three persons with one essense is not the way in which I would actually teach the Trinity. In general modern theology tends to approach the Trinity and Incarnation in terms of function and identity rather than ontology. It's very hard to find modern theology online. N T Wright is the main example, though his theology isn't necessarily the one I'd otherwise choose. Still, his discussion of the Trinity is typical of modern theology. The best online treatment I've found is Ask NT Wright Anything #19 Doctrine questions about the Trinity and Baptism, from 12:52 to 24:03. But this is surely not the way in which most Christians talk about the Trinity, even if it's the way the Bible does.

But I'm not so sure most Christians actually do talk about this to non-Christians. My impression is that it's mostly about sin, salvation, Jesus, and the Incarnation. I don't think Christians talk about the Trinity all that much. It's mainly likely to come up with Muslims, who think it's tritheism. Based on what I see in CF, I doubt most Christians would be able to convince them that they're wrong.

Why isn’t it something most Christians would talk about?

My answer really applies to Protestants. I think for traditional Christians there’s a different answer, and it might well be that they would talk about the Trinity.

For Protestants, however, questions are expected to have Scriptural answers. But the official doctrine, three persons with one essense, isn’t actually something you can find directly in Scripture. It’s a development of several centuries of tradition, looking for a way to understand what Scripture says in terms meaningful in late antiquity. In those terms I think it’s successful. The alternatives would clearly have had serious consequences for Christianity.

But if you try to approach it as most Protestants do, you end up with pages of proof texts, which wouldn’t actually lead to the doctrine, nor show why it’s a sensible way to understand what Scripture shows. If you want a formulation that actually illuminates what’s going on in Scripture, I think you end up with something like Wright. But most Protestants are opposed to modern theology on principle. So they’re stuck with sets of proof texts that can be used to bludgeon anyone who questions, but which don’t actually convince anyone that the doctrine matters.

hedrick said:

It's mainly likely to come up with Muslims, who think it's tritheism. Based on what I see in CF, I doubt most Christians would be able to convince them that they're wrong.

Click to expand...

I'll need to learn to write in such a diplomatic way .

Andrewn said:

I'll need to learn to write in such a diplomatic way .

Click to expand...

Me too. Hope I didn't come off too harsh.

Maybe this is helpful?

ABCthings said:

I was arguing with a non Christian and pointed out that God is greater than Jesus so it kind of like a Big God, small god thing. Anyway from me to clarify things to him.

Click to expand...

That non Christian is more theologically correct than the attempt to explain the Trinity. I prefer to use the word "Triunity". Which has within it the concept of the Godhead being equal.

When the non Christian said that God is greater than Jesus. From a certain perspective that statement is true.
Jesus said so when He was human and unable to do the miraculous that God can do. Jesus said "Without Him I can do nothing."

Use applicable scripture when making explanations because the 'little god' thing is theological error.

Since Jesus was arisen and glorified and ascended to sit at the right hand of God on His throne, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in all things. In the garden of Gethsemane Jesus prayed to the Father "Restore to Me the glory which I had with You before the world/universe was."

hedrick said:

But the official doctrine, three persons with one essense, isn’t actually something you can find directly in Scripture.

Click to expand...

That’s sctually kind of a myth, a false axiom. The doctrine of the Trinity is directly derived from sacred scripture and has always been broadly accepted (hence Tertullian himself, who lived before Arius and Paul of Samosata, coined the word “Trinitas.”)

We have to remember that support of the Trinity was the overwhelming opinion at Nicea, which was not coerced by Constantine as some modern day non Trinitarians would have us believe, as Constantine at that time was barely catechized, and ultimately was baptized on his deathbed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was an Arian.

But we can indeed find the Trinity directly in scripture. “i and the father are one,” and also the first chapter of John, and the closing verse of Matthew, and many other passages only make sense with the Nicene interpretation.

The Liturgist said:

That’s sctually kind of a myth, a false axiom. The doctrine of the Trinity is directly derived from sacred scripture and has always been broadly accepted (hence Tertullian himself, who lived before Arius and Paul of Samosata, coined the word “Trinitas.”)

We have to remember that support of the Trinity was the overwhelming opinion at Nicea, which was not coerced by Constantine as some modern day non Trinitarians would have us believe, as Constantine at that time was barely catechized, and ultimately was baptized on his deathbed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was an Arian.

But we can indeed find the Trinity directly in scripture. “i and the father are one,” and also the first chapter of John, and the closing verse of Matthew, and many other passages only make sense with the Nicene interpretation.

Click to expand...

I said you can’t find the official language involving nature and person. I never said it wasn’t based on Scripture, though the path from Scripture to the final doctrine is complex. Further, even Nicea doesn’t use the three persons language. The only ontological language it uses is "of the same substance," and it was widely accepted because it could be understood in different ways, although it did reject Arianism.

hedrick said:

I said you can’t find the official language involving nature and person. I never said it wasn’t based on Scripture, though the path from Scripture to the final doctrine is complex. Further, even Nicea doesn’t use the three persons language.

Click to expand...

Ah, ok, I see what you were saying. Although I will say the path from Scripture to Nicene homoousios is simpler than a lot of people seem to think.

The only ontological language it uses is "of the same substance," and it was widely accepted because it could be understood in different ways, although it did reject Arianism.

Click to expand...

Indeed. More specifically, the revised creed of Constantinople in 381 seems to me capable of fully articulating the Trinitarian faith (we do not actually need Quincunque Vult, the creed misattributed to Athanasius, in order to “get there.”)

The Liturgist said:

Ah, ok, I see what you were saying. Although I will say the path from Scripture to Nicene homoousios is simpler than a lot of people seem to think.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of the path to three persons with one nature, i.e. the Athanasian Creed. I agree that Nicea is easier. While "of the same substance" is a bit more abstract than anything in Scripture, I agree that Scriptural support is pretty clear.

Hey, Henrick you look like my twin brother. Are you Adopted?

Daniel Marsh said:

Hey, Henrick you look like my twin brother. Are you Adopted?

Click to expand...

No

hedrick said:

No

Click to expand...

Am I adopted? If I was that may explain a lot of things.

hedrick said:

No

Click to expand...

You look like my twin brother.
Are you rich?
Adopt me...
LOL

.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Actually, there is no "hierarchy";

Click to expand...

The Son is from the Father, therefore there is a hierarchy.

"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father..."