Curious- How do you understand The trinity?

[Tangible]

What is the difference between 3 persons in one being and 3 manifestations?

Orthodoxy.

 

[Khalliqa]

It means that there are three distinct persons, not three different manifestations of one and the same person. That is to say, it is not just one and the same reality manifesting itself in different ways. There are actually three different persons.

ViaCrucis' posts are very good, and represent mainstream Christianity.

So there are actually three separate entities?

 

[Tangible]

So there are actually three separate entities?

One God, three Persons.

 

[Albion]

So there are actually three separate entities?

No. It's more like three aspects of one entity. To be clear, the persona of the Trinity are not different qualities or characteristics or roles played or manifestations, so when I say "aspects," I'm only trying to turn you to the correct direction, not offer a handy definition.

A famous saint and evangelist used the shamrock, it is said, to illustrate the idea of the Trinity. Is it one plant or is it three-pronged?

 

[Khalliqa]

One God, three Persons.

Oof. I'm not trying to be difficult. I swear. But this STILL doesn't make any sense to me.. I can follow the graphic and accept it but not understand it. Like memorizing time tables but not understanding groupings!


I can repeat it out of respect but I don't understand how The father and the son can both be god but Jesus be called the creator and god in churches.. and if God is "THE" creator then why are there other persons who are NOT manifestations?

My goal right now is just to comprehend what you're saying. :-/

 

[Khalliqa]

No. It's more like three aspects of one entity. To be clear, the persona of the Trinity are not different qualities or characteristics or roles played or manifestations, so when I say "aspects," I'm only trying to turn you to the correct direction, not offer a handy definition.

A famous saint and evangelist used the shamrock, it is said, to illustrate the idea of the Trinity. Is it one plant or is it three-pronged?

Okay maybe it will be helpful if you could explain how manifestations are different from aspects. Because I'm conflating the two.

 

[Albion]

Okay maybe it will be helpful if you could explain how manifestations are different from aspects. Because I'm conflating the two.

Well, saying that there are different manifestations of God would mean only that the one God appeared differently to us (meaning the people of the Bible) on different occasions, presumably as he thought it necessary for his purpose each time. That's hardly more than saying God changed his clothes.

The Bible makes clear that the persona (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are one God, but the Trinity is more than just one God in different guises or poses. OR, if not that, that we humans thought he looked or seemed different at different times (stern judge, gentle savior, whatever, as the occasion directed).

 

[Khalliqa]

Well, saying that there are different manifestations of God would mean only that the one God appeared differently to us (meaning the people of the Bible) on different occasions, presumably as he thought it necessary for his purpose each time. That's hardly more than saying God changed his clothes.

Okay, this makes sense to me. If I understand you correctly you're saying that god is not some blob that shape shifts.. which is the image I keep getting in my head.

The Bible makes clear that the persona (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are one God but it's more than just that one God in different guises or, if not that, that we humans thought he looked or seemed different at different times (stern judge, gentle savior, whatever, as the occasion directed).

Okay. So, you're saying that there are other entities that are equal to god that god is not the only supreme being in the universe to adhere to? If this is so, wouldn't that be polytheism? and if not, please help me understand..

 

[Tangible]

Oof. I'm not trying to be difficult. I swear. But this STILL doesn't make any sense to me.. I can follow the graphic and accept it but not understand it. Like memorizing time tables but not understanding groupings!


I can repeat it out of respect but I don't understand how The father and the son can both be god but Jesus be called the creator and god in churches.. and if God is "THE" creator then why are there other persons who are NOT manifestations?

My goal right now is just to comprehend what you're saying. :-/

The Trinity cannot be fully understood. It is a paradox, something that seems like it shouldn't or couldn't be true but is. The Trinity must simply be confessed. The Trinity cannot be comprehended, but it can be apprehended.

 

[Albion]

Okay, this makes sense to me. If I understand you correctly you're saying that god is not some blob that shape shifts.. which is the image I keep getting in my head.

Very good!

Okay. So, you're saying that there are other entities that are equal to god that god is not the only supreme being in the universe to adhere to?

Oh no. Didn't I take care to say, several times, "one" God?

If this is so, wouldn't that be polytheism? and if not, please help me understand..

Yes, that would be polytheism, so let's get rid of that right now and consider it just a "failure to communicate well enough" on my part. The problem here may be your use of "entities." That means, I think, "beings," which would amount to multiple gods, and that is definitely not what we believe.

 

[zippy2006]

Okay, this makes sense to me. If I understand you correctly you're saying that god is not some blob that shape shifts.. which is the image I keep getting in my head.



Okay. So, you're saying that there are other entities that are equal to god that god is not the only supreme being in the universe to adhere to? If this is so, wouldn't that be polytheism? and if not, please help me understand..

Fulton Sheen may be helpful to you:

 

[ViaCrucis]

So there are actually three separate entities?

It can probably be frustrating trying to get a handle on that--so your frustration and confusion is completely natural. One of the things about the doctrine of the Trinity is that, traditionally, the wording and language has been intended to be very precise in order to avoid wrong ideas about the Trinity.

So for example the Three Persons are distinct but not separate. By saying "distinct" we mean to say that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit (etc); but they are never separate. The Father is never separate from the Son, because the Father and the Son are of one Essence, Being, Substance, and/or Nature. By these terms: Essence, Being, Substance (etc) we are referring to the is-ness of God. What God is. Specifically that God is God. Thus the "is-ness" of the Father is God; that is what the Father is; the Son also is God, that is what the Son is.

This "is-ness" is not a quality or a property in, say, the same way that being human is. You and I are both human, but we are two entirely separate human beings. We both have the nature, the being, the essence of being human but we are two entirely distinct and separate instances of humanity.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same God, the same is-ness, the same what; and also the same undivided, inseparable "instance" of being God. The Father and the Son are not two Gods, two instances of divine nature but the same.

The Father and the son are the same God, not as a common property or quality in the way you and I are both human beings; but as being the same Being--the same undivided, inseparable thing.

Thus we do not have three kings, but one King; not three lords, but one Lord; not three almighties, but one Almighty. The Father is Almighty, King, Lord, etc--and thus the Son is also, and the Spirit is also; the same King, the same Lord, the same Almighty.

Distinct, but never separate. One Entity, not three entities. One Being, not three beings.

All this language is very intentional, and it's why we also tend to go through a lot of effort to try and use as precise and intentional language as possible.

Because to say there are three entities would be to say there are three Gods, three different things, three powers, a triad rather than a Trinity.

To say there are three manifestations would be to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely masks God wears when it suits Him.

To say that there are three parts would be to divide God, where God is indivisible, whole.

Thus there is one God, undivided, of three Hypostases or Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--distinct but inseparate; not part of a whole but wholly One: the Father is fully God, the fullness of God, the entirety of God; the Son is fully God, the fullness of God, the entirety of God, the Spirit is fully God, the fullness of God, the entirety of God. Each is the one God unto Himself, the same and one God. Thus when the Father relates to the Son, we do not have two Gods, but rather God relating to God (the One God relating to the One God) yet without any confusion; as two true, real, distinct Someones in dialogue, in communion, in relationship.

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is problematic. Sounds like Arianism.

Depends on the intent; the phrase itself is wholly biblical as it is from Colossians,

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" (Colossians 1:15)

The Greek is πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (prototokos pases ktiseos) "the firstborn of every creature" or "of all creation"; it's a phrase which Arians and neo-Arians try to use to suggest Jesus is a creature, but given the context that isn't the likely meaning, but rather it speaks to Christ's headship over creation, as the text continues "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Thus context and intent is key.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Khalliqa]

It can probably be frustrating trying to get a handle on that--so your frustration and confusion is completely natural. One of the things about the doctrine of the Trinity is that, traditionally, the wording and language has been intended to be very precise in order to avoid wrong ideas about the Trinity.

So for example the Three Persons are distinct but not separate. By saying "distinct" we mean to say that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit (etc); but they are never separate. The Father is never separate from the Son, because the Father and the Son are of one Essence, Being, Substance, and/or Nature. By these terms: Essence, Being, Substance (etc) we are referring to the is-ness of God. What God is. Specifically that God is God. Thus the "is-ness" of the Father is God; that is what the Father is; the Son also is God, that is what the Son is.

This "is-ness" is not a quality or a property in, say, the same way that being human is. You and I are both human, but we are two entirely separate human beings. We both have the nature, the being, the essence of being human but we are two entirely distinct and separate instances of humanity.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same God, the same is-ness, the same what; and also the same undivided, inseparable "instance" of being God. The Father and the Son are not two Gods, two instances of divine nature but the same.

The Father and the son are the same God, not as a common property or quality in the way you and I are both human beings; but as being the same Being--the same undivided, inseparable thing.

Thus we do not have three kings, but one King; not three lords, but one Lord; not three almighties, but one Almighty. The Father is Almighty, King, Lord, etc--and thus the Son is also, and the Spirit is also; the same King, the same Lord, the same Almighty.

Distinct, but never separate. One Entity, not three entities. One Being, not three beings.

All this language is very intentional, and it's why we also tend to go through a lot of effort to try and use as precise and intentional language as possible.

Because to say there are three entities would be to say there are three Gods, three different things, three powers, a triad rather than a Trinity.

To say there are three manifestations would be to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely masks God wears when it suits Him.

To say that there are three parts would be to divide God, where God is indivisible, whole.

Thus there is one God, undivided, of three Hypostases or Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--distinct but inseparate; not part of a whole but wholly One: the Father is fully God, the fullness of God, the entirety of God; the Son is fully God, the fullness of God, the entirety of God, the Spirit is fully God, the fullness of God, the entirety of God. Each is the one God unto Himself, the same and one God. Thus when the Father relates to the Son, we do not have two Gods, but rather God relating to God (the One God relating to the One God) yet without any confusion; as two true, real, distinct Someones in dialogue, in communion, in relationship.

-CryptoLuthearn

Thank you for sticking with me and breaking it down some more.. Okay I'm going to take another stab..

I can understand a being of the same essence (category) but being distinct and SEPARATE.. like HUMANS

I can understand (by definition only) a being of the same essence and a thing being distinct and NOT SEPARATE..

I can understand it because I can understand removing a characteristic from a definition. But that's as much as it means to me.. and this does help me narrow down my question a bit.. I realize it doesn't come together because I have nothing to attribute it to..

In other words I can follow it but it doesn't seem anything outside of an idea..

can you point to something in nature that is like or comes close to it? A being of the same essence producing distinctly different but not separate things?

 

[Waggles]

This is problematic. Sounds like Arianism.

Not at all. It is quite scriptural.

Colossians 1:15
(ASV) who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
(BBE) Who is the image of the unseen God coming into existence before all living things;
(DRB) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(ESV) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
(KJV) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(RV) who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
(YLT) who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come,
the Almighty. Revelation 1:8
Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Isaiah 48:12
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last;
and beside me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6

There are mysteries here beyond our comprehension.

 

[Waggles]

This is problematic. Sounds like Arianism.

Not at all. It is quite scriptural.

Colossians 1:15
(ASV) who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
(BBE) Who is the image of the unseen God coming into existence before all living things;
(DRB) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(ESV) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
(KJV) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(RV) who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
(YLT) who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come,
the Almighty. Revelation 1:8
Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Isaiah 48:12
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last;
and beside me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6

There are mysteries here beyond our comprehension.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wondering how do Christians of varying denominations approach or not approach the concept of the trinity? How do you rectify Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit being "one" or signs of the other or manifestations of one? Also how do you define each? Or do you reject it altogether? And on what basis (reason or biblical) do you reject or accept and understand it?

Like this. *Who/what* actually died on the cross?

 

[PanDeVida]

Wondering how do Christians of varying denominations approach or not approach the concept of the trinity? How do you rectify Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit being "one" or signs of the other or manifestations of one? Also how do you define each? Or do you reject it altogether? And on what basis (reason or biblical) do you reject or accept and understand it?

The dogma of the Trinity
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitasin Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantismof today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation

 

[PanDeVida]

Proof of doctrine from Scripture
New Testament
The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step.

First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Personsfollows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostlesbelieved. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

The supernatural appearance at the baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists, it is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons. Yet, apart from Christ'ssubsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see the Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias.

Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular and clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each. In regard to the First Person it will not be necessary to give special citations: those which declare that Jesus Christ is God the Son, affirm thereby also the separate personality of the Father. The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere (see JESUS CHRIST), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from the Synoptists, in which Christ bears witness to His Divine Nature.

• He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.
• In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).
• He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).
• He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias — a step long since taken by all the Apostles — but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).
• Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).

 

[PanDeVida]

St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner" (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.

Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.)

In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the Old Testament, to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke 12:12, "The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, and Luke 24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with Matthew 28:19, postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (14, 15, 16). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal commission. In them the Apostles are instructed not only as the personality of the Spirit, but as to His office towards the Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (16:13) to bring back their minds the teaching of Christ (14:26), to convince the world of sin (16:8). It is evident that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a Divine Person it could not have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son (15:26; cf. 14:16, 14:26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciplesis at the same time the presence of the Son (14:17-18), while the presence of the Son is the presence of the Father (14:23).

In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in 2 Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]." (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2-3)

But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10)

 

[PanDeVida]

St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner" (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.

Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.)

In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the Old Testament, to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke 12:12, "The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, and Luke 24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with Matthew 28:19, postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (14, 15, 16). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal commission. In them the Apostles are instructed not only as the personality of the Spirit, but as to His office towards the Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (16:13) to bring back their minds the teaching of Christ (14:26), to convince the world of sin (16:8). It is evident that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a Divine Person it could not have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son (15:26; cf. 14:16, 14:26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciplesis at the same time the presence of the Son (14:17-18), while the presence of the Son is the presence of the Father (14:23).

In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in 2 Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]." (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2-3)

But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10)