Clarification on the Trinity

[Keath]

In your opinion, does orthodox trinity teaching 1) define God as one being in three distinct persons; or 2) define God as a combination of divine traits shared by three persons in complete Godhead unity? or 3) both 1 and 2
I had always understood #1 as the principal definition (though a bit a paradox at least for the human mind) with #2 also being an additional truth. Or is the first statement false?
If the first statement is not false, that God is truly one God, but also that God is truly 3 persons; then is it an error to at times to speak of only His oneness (example Isaiah 45:21-23 ) and at other times to speak only of the distinct persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

 

[Albion]

In your opinion, does orthodox trinity teaching 1) define God as one being in three distinct persons

Yes, but it depends on how one understands that wording. If it is interpreted as three different beings, then No.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Early Christians were literally killing each other over this debate.

The faction that eventually won the debate didn't do so by strength of argument or evidence, but by having the most political and military power to destroy dissenters.

As such, the winning position was: "one god in three persons", with the persons being distinct yet of the same substance.

Seeing how fractured Christianity is today, and how little your run-of-the-mill evangelical knows about theology, I wouldn't be surprised to find if interpretations of the concept that were clearly labeled a deathworthy heresy at one point weren't around without individuals or even whole congregations being aware of their deviation from orthodoxy.

 

[Keath]

Yes, but it depends on how one understands that wording. If it is interpreted as three different beings, then No.

Thanks for your input. Ok, that is my understanding that God is one being; not 3 beings; but also that the 1 being has 3 persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
A key scripture that I have used to understand the Trinity is Genesis 1:26 - 'humankind is created in the image/likeness of a Triune God'. Thus a simplified (though limited) model of a trinity exists in each human: 1 being with 1 mind where soul, body, and spirit commune.

 

[Keath]

Seeing how fractured Christianity is today, and how little your run-of-the-mill evangelical knows about theology, I wouldn't be surprised to find if interpretations of the concept that were clearly labeled a deathworthy heresy at one point weren't around without individuals or even whole congregations being aware of their deviation from orthodoxy.

Quite possibly true; it is a complex concept.

 

[Albion]

Thanks for your input. Ok, that is my understanding that God is one being; not 3 beings; but also that the 1 being has 3 persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
A key scripture that I have used to understand the Trinity is Genesis 1:26 - 'humankind is created in the image/likeness of a Triune God'. Thus a simplified (though limited) model of a trinity exists in each human: 1 being with 1 mind where soul, body, and spirit commune.

While we agree on the persons aspect, that paraphrase of the Genesis verse I cannot agree with. The meaning of 'image' and 'likeness' is most often taken to mean that we were created with intelligence and an immortal soul.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

In your opinion, does orthodox trinity teaching 1) define God as one being in three distinct persons; or 2) define God as a combination of divine traits shared by three persons in complete Godhead unity? or 3) both 1 and 2
I had always understood #1 as the principal definition (though a bit a paradox at least for the human mind) with #2 also being an additional truth. Or is the first statement false?
If the first statement is not false, that God is truly one God, but also that God is truly 3 persons; then is it an error to at times to speak of only His oneness (example Isaiah 45:21-23 ) and at other times to speak only of the distinct persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

The basic definition of the Trinity is:

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Trinitarian God has no parts. You cannot divide infinite being into components.

The three persons, are not three parts of God but three personal distinctions within God, each of whom is fully God.

Isaiah 45:21-23 says there is only one God and Trinitarianism teaches only one God.

 

[Keath]

The basic definition of the Trinity is:

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Trinitarian God has no parts. You cannot divide infinite being into components.

The three persons, are not three parts of God but three personal distinctions within God, each of whom is fully God.

Isaiah 45:21-23 says there is only one God and Trinitarianism teaches only one God.

Thank you for your input. I think the emphasis you gave above, including on persons over 'parts' is good. My only comment would be regarding 'distinctions', I'm not sure this word provides much more clarity than 'parts'; but I'm an engineer, not english major.

 

[Keath]

While we agree on the persons aspect, that paraphrase of the Genesis verse I cannot agree with. The meaning of 'image' and 'likeness' is most often taken to mean that we were created with intelligence and an immortal soul.

I guess a couple of questions. One regarding the scripture Ge 1:26 - If God is Triune, and the scripture specifically uses the plural for God and text says we/our - can it at least be assumed in this location that it is the Triune God speaking (and not simply the person of the Father, Son, or Spirit)? And if this is true, does not the likeness/image need to bare some aspect of Father, Son, and Spirit; or man else man is not created in the likeness/image of the speaker? Third question, by what scripture is the likeness/image of man restricted to intelligence and immortal soul? And lastly, and only speaking from the natural and without any implication to God and the Trinity, is man not made of mind (intellect), body (physical), soul (emotions), and spirit (though potentially dead in non-believers)?

 

[Albion]

I guess a couple of questions. One regarding the scripture Ge 1:26 - If God is Triune, and the scripture specifically uses the plural for God and text says we/our - can it at least be assumed in this location that it is the Triune God speaking (and not simply the person of the Father, Son, or Spirit)?

I'd say so.

And if this is true, does not the likeness/image need to bare some aspect of Father, Son, and Spirit; or man else man is not created in the likeness/image of the speaker?

God is a spirit and is eternal. For him to create us--of all his living creatures--endowed with immortality is to make us in his image and likeness.

Third question, by what scripture is the likeness/image of man restricted to intelligence and immortal soul?

None. That's just the conventional estimate of the meaning of that phrase.

And lastly, and only speaking from the natural and without any implication to God and the Trinity, is man not made of mind (intellect), body (physical), soul (emotions), and spirit (though potentially dead in non-believers)?

Why stipulate that this has no "implication to God?"

 

[Keath]

I'd say so.
And lastly, and only speaking from the natural and without any implication to God and the Trinity, is man not made of mind (intellect), body (physical), soul (emotions), and spirit (though potentially dead in non-believers)?
Why stipulate that this has no "implication to God?"

I said that as I was just trying to avoid making a strictly natural argument about the nature of God; I wanted to first answer the question about the nature of man. But yes after answering the question about the nature of man (which in my experience is a limited triune being - body, soul, spirit with communal mind); then I think there are valid questions regarding what can be understood regarding the nature of Eternal Triune God. And I don't think the traditional interpretation of Ge 1:26 would exclude the concept that man's limited triune nature is another similarity God passed along to us.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

Thank you for your input. I think the emphasis you gave above, including on persons over 'parts' is good. My only comment would be regarding 'distinctions', I'm not sure this word provides much more clarity than 'parts'; but I'm an engineer, not english major.

Distinctions would be the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, etc.

There is also a kind of order or subordination within the Trinity; the Father is first, the Son second and the Holy Spirit, but not in essence or substance. The Father sends and the Son obeys and comes; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; the Father sends His Spirit and also the Son can send the Holy Spirit.

The Son redeems and the Holy Spirit sanctifies.