Explaining the Trinity

[mindlight]

I'd forgotten Genesis chapter 18 where God appears to Abraham as three men or three angels.

I have seen icons that clearly see this in Trinitarian terms. I wonder how much of this a sort of over zealous attempt to allegorise the entire OT post Origen. If one goes into the details of the passage it would not be possible to use this as a model. However clearly people have interpreted the broader meaning as referrign to this down the ages.

 

[mindlight]

Thank goodness it doesn't make sense. For a minute there I thought I might have to change religions.

 

[Deut 5:29]

The Trinity originates in heaven.

Not so, it originated right here on earth.

 

[mindlight]

I think to get a grasp on the early Trinitarian formulations (Tertullian, Novatian, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, Augustine, Gregory, Hilary of Poitiers, etc..) you have to have a grasp on certain western ontological categories of thinking. In this system of thinking, an object exists as the sum total of it's essential properties. Important definitions:

essential property: P is an essential property of some object 'x' if and only if x necessarily has P in any world where x exists. So if P is an essential property of x, x will never be without P when x exists.

essence (synonomous with "nature" or "being"): E is an essence of x if and only if E is essential to x and everything distinct from x has ~E essentially. So, if you have to objects, x and y, and both x and y have essence E then the two objects are the same essence, the same being, they have the same nature.

Let's take a simple example. I am sitting on a chair. What are some properties this chair has? Well, it has the property of "able to be sat on". It has the property of "being uncomfortable". It has the property of "having legs". Take the property "being uncomfortable". Is this an essential property? By the definition, if "uncomfortable" is an essential property of this chair if it necessarily uncomfortable whenever this chair exists. But, I know for a fact that this chair was comfortable before I tore the arms off of it. So "being uncomfortable" is not an essential property for this chair. It's a contingent or accidental property.

For the early Trinitarian formulations, they will express God as being One in Essence (one in Being, one Nature) that consists of 3 persons (or three subsistances, 3 personages). These 3 persons share in the Being of God so that they are One God yet they are individuated by the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Take the property "omnipotence" as it may be a little easier. If "omnipotence" is an essence of God then omnipotence is essential to God and everything distince from God is essentially not-omnipotent. So if both Father and Son are omnipotent, then we have a property that is an Essence of God that both Father and Son share. So the Father and Son share in the one Being of God.

Very well structured argument. But in the case of the property of omnipotence for instance how do we deal with the fact that Christ apparently emptied himself of this property when he chose to be born in a stable... being in very nature God (he) did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. but made himself nothing...therefore God exalted him to the highest place.(Php 2)

Did Christ surrender the property of omnipotence for a spell before in a sense being given it back by the Father. Or in some mysterious way did he remain Omnipotent and limited at the same time. So is omnipotence an essential property of Divinity if can be surrendered and regained. Does each Person of the Trinity have to have it to be God.

Or take a little more difficult example and say it's true that necessarily God exists. Then existence is an essence of God since existence is an essential property that God has that everything distinct from God has the compliment of, namely, not-necessarily-existing. That is, God's existence is necessary and everything else is contingent. But, we would posit that there exist at least two individuals who both necessarily have existence - that would be the Father and Son. So once again, the Father and Son are sharing in the same Being, the same Essence, but they are still not identical to one another.

You still have One God by these definitions, but you have three persons.

God names Himself "IAM who I AM". He exists and there is no other reference point for His existence. But Jesus, Father and Spirit are all I AM - without beginning or ending they exist. This seems obvious except for one thing. What about the Incarnation? Jesus as creature has an historical beginning. Jesus as God does not. So did the Jesus we know today exist as we know Him before the Immaculate conception and Virgin Birth?

Take the property of "dying on a Roman cross". This would be a contingent property that the Son has but that the Father does not. It's contingent because the Son didn't necessarily have to die on a Roman cross; God could have decided to not create anything at all, in which case the property of "dying on a Roman cross" would be held by nobody. So it's a contingent property had by the Son. This would indicate that the Father and the Son are not identical since there is at least one property that is true about one that is not true about the other, namely, "dying on a Roman cross".

Yes I can see that you might extend the notion of contingent properties to Christs creaturely status as a man also. But then I wonder if we are simply not understanding the ways in which the father, Son and Spirit interpenetrate each others lives and existences. What is experienced by the one is experienced by all. Creation is a Trinitarian act, so must also Redemption be?

I think these are some down and dirty examples, and they may be far from perfect. But I think this is fair enough to show that Father and Son share the same Essence, the same Being, the same Nature, but that they are distinguished from one another as well so that the Father is not identical to the Son. Hence, 1 Being, 3 persons.

One of the biggest mistakes made today in the western world is to assume a material-based ontology. Many people assume, without even realizing it, that for something to exist, it must have a certain set of material properties. And for this assumption, the thinking would go, that the Father and Son are not the same Being because both have distinct material properties. For eample, maybe it's the case that the Father doesn't have any material properties at all (perhaps He's immaterial), but the Son does. So within a material-based ontology they would not share in the same being because of their different material properties.

But the Church Fathers do not, nor the biblical authors for that matter, have a material-based ontology. So if you were to assume a material-based ontology when trying to understand the Trinity you would end up misunderstanding or not understanding what they were saying.

This I think is the down-and-dirty of the ontological Trinity - who God is.

I should have read on and of course I agree with this point. The Western world is blinkered to a considerable extent by its materialism on this doctrine and in my view on that of Creation also for instance.

Then you have another animal called the Economic Trinity which could simply be stated to be what God does in creation - how God acts. This is usually easier to understand in my opinion since it doesn't involve abstract ideas that we are unfamiliar with. I would be one to think that it's the economic Trinity that reveals the truth of the ontological Trinity. And I think it's the Economic Trinity that the New Testament reveals in it's writings. It's reflection on the revelation of the New Testament (and Old Testament) and seeing how God acts within the created order that I think led the Church Fathers to form statements about who God is.

I suppose it is both easier to draw conclusions from definite actions and also to misunderstand them. Without the insights that God Himself provides us and the grace that comes from being connected to Him by His Spirit I wonder how obvious the Ontological natuure of God would be to people. Not all those who witnessed the miracles performed by Jesus drew the correct conclusions from them. In some the miracles themselves were signs and clues as to the inner workings of His Divinity and yet they were misread by Pharisees and commoners alike in the times. The early church fathers voiced profound thoughts on the nature of God but have some stuff wrong. Thankfully we have scriptures to guide us to what God has chosen to reveal about His Trinitarian Being.

 

[mindlight]

It's so interesting that people defend the Trinity by saying it's a mystery while giving no scriptural proof of it's existence in the first place -that's the real mystery to me.

Yekcidmij's post makes it very clear that the Trinity doctrine originates in third century neo-platonic philosophy and not in the Bible.

I am going to assume you already accept the Father is God.

God the Father says about the Son:
"Your throne O God, will last forever" Hebrews 1 v 8

The Spirits Divinity is affirmed in Acts 5 v 3-4:
"...you have lied to the Holy Spirit...You have not lied to men but to God"

I think you misread Yekcidmijs post. Yekcidmij tell me I am wrong about hat you said but I read a distinction being made between the modern Westerners problem with ontological thought per see and the intellectual climate in which the church fathers operated. But he did not indicate that the early church fathers had blindly bought into the worldview of their own day in the conclusions that they had drawn

 

[mindlight]

I thought I was pretty clear in my last short paragraph. I do think they got these ideas from the bible. I think they came to the Trinitarian formulations by reflecting on what was revealed in scripture; just read what the guys wrote (they obviously got their ideas from scripture)! The difficulty is that you are looking at two different systems of thought between Jewish writers and later western Christians. I don't think there's anything wrong with such a thing either. Just because people think in different categories doesn't necessarily make one of their categories wrong if the other is correct. All of this would be a false dicotomy wrapped up in a genetic fallacy. As far as I can tell, both the biblical writers and the Church Fathers are expressing the same ideas they are just not expressing it the same exact way.

I think the logical end for the Church Fathers reflecting on the biblical text was the Trinity. Hence, I do think you can get Trinitarianism from the bible, it just might be a little more involved and take a little more thinking than pointing to Book-verse 3:16 in the bible and finding some sort of proof text. Heaven help us if we've come to the point where we only accept a sentence proof text.

Oh you had already replied to Kencj.

This distinction between the church fathers who effectively phrased the doctrine and the actual witness of scripture intrigues me. What then are the key differences and what is their significance for our understanding of this doctrine? Can a Western worldview alien to both mindsets give us a little perspective in approaching the question?

 

[mindlight]

The current Greek methods of expression and terminology (borrowed from Platonic, Neo-Platonic, Neo-Pythagorean, Aristotelian, and Stoic philosophy among other sources) may have been used in the theological debates but the Fathers of the Church did not teach Greek philosophy in place of Theology. In fact the same Fathers who fought for the truth of the Trinity themselves warned about the dangers of profane philosophy. Their theology did not arise through mere rational speculation but came from living the life of the Church and gaining experiential gnosis from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Exactly the degree to which the Church Fathers bought into our own abbreviated view of the Greco- Roman mind is exaggerated and distorted here. Indeed in many ways ,being closer to the time of Christ and the apostles, the Church Fathers had many advantages when it came to phrasing the doctrine. The passing of time and accumulation of theological texts has not necessarily added to the quality of insight about Gods nature in many cases.

 

[mindlight]

The book "The Person in the Orthodox Tradition" by Metropolitan Hierotheos does an excellent job explaining the relation of theology to philosophy (and the gulf between the two). In it he states:

"It can readily be seen that the god of the philosophers and philosophy is not the God of the Church, that the god of philosophy is an abstract and non-existent god and that the man of philosophy is not the same as the man of the Church. We shall look at this more analytically further on and see for ourselves the opposition of the Holy Fathers to philosophy and the philosophers.....

..the holy Fathers also rejected the method used by the ancient philosophers, their way of arriving at these conclusions, for it leads to erroneous theories about God, man, and creation. The philosophers philosophized by conjecture, imagination, and having reason at the center, while for the holy the Fathers the nous was the center. They first purified their hearts of passions, and their nous was illuminated. This illumination of the nous is not just knowledge of the archetypes of beings, but the coming of the grace of God into the heart. As a result of this, they attained the vision of God, which is seeing God in the uncreated Light. It is in this way that the holy Prophets, Apostles, and saints received the revelation, the manifestation of God in their hearts.

Therefore theology is not related to philosophy, but more akin to medicine. And indeed we observe that all the heretics through the ages used philosophy, whereas the holy Fathers lived hesychasm. We find this in the whole tradition of the church and in the three Hiearchs, as we shall see in what follows. They followed another method in order to partake of the uncreated grace of God and attain the real knowledge of God. In medical science there is a cure, and through this a person is brought to health. The same is true in orthodox theology. Man cures his organ for knowing, which is the nous, and in this way he attains health and acquires knowledge of God, which also implies salvation."

Well said

 

[mindlight]

That Aristotle and later Greek writers shared a common language, Greek, is a coincidence of location, not belief.

What Greek words were not used by the pagan philosophers ?

Paul himself uses the pagan philosophical term "nous" (and delineates between the spiritual and the fleshly nous); John borrows the developed Stoic term "logos", refills it and applies it to Christ in the opening passages of his Gospel (which echoes the opening passages of Genesis).

The Greek word "hypostasis" belonged to the language, not Aristotle. Like John's treatment of "logos", and Paul's use of "nous" (which is related to the meaning of logos), the term hypostasis is refilled by the Christians.


Further, Christ is the Light -- the source of light illumines those who do not have a light of their own.

Well put

 

[mindlight]

you can't "explain" trinity anymore than you can explain eternal nature of the being of God. As well as Jesus being just as much God as if he wasn't human at all and at the same time being just as much man as if he was not God at all. How can anyone be 200%? The Bible is replete with facts we as humans with sin tainted minds can't understand. Nevertheless we believe because that is what the Bible teaches.

We can understand to the extent that God has laid out the revelation for us to understand. This a mystery about which definite truthes can be spoken.

Anyone passionate about understanding God must reckon with the Trinity.

However in the end we accept a lot of things on faith and leave our questions on the to be explained list God will get from each of us when we meet Him fully.

 

[mindlight]

Our God is also a personal God, a trinity of persons, a fellowship of three sharing the one essence and energies of the one divinity.

The divinity existing in the way of a fountainhead is the Person ( Hypostasis ) of the Father. The divinity existing in the way of Generation from the Father is the person of the Only-Begotten Son of God, the Word ( Logos ) of God. The divinity existing in the way of Procession from the Father (only), is the Person of the Holy Spirit of God.

Each one of the three Persons ( hypostases ) of the Holy Trinity is the entire divinity. On this basis, the three divine persons dwell in one another ( perichoresis ) inter-dwelling, co-inherence. Each one of the three acts together with the other two; however, each of them relates to the creation in a personal way: the Father conceives the plan of creation (and of restoration of Creation in His Christ); the Son of God makes the Father's plan of creation (and the salvation of creation) a reality; the Holy Spirit leads God's (the Father's) plan of creation (and restoration of creation in Christ, the incarnate Logos of God) to its perfection.

The Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

I love this perichoresis notion of interdwelling, co-inherence... this explains a lot to me.

BUT you also describe procession as being Father- Son - Spirit.

The great schism of the 11th century was a i suppose rooted in the discussion of this Orthodox view and the wording of the Nicence creed.

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of life who proceeds from the Father AND the Son. He has spoken through the prophets."

I suppose you think that the Catholic and therefore Protestant traditions have simply misread scripture on this issue?

 

[Dorothea]

I love this perichoresis notion of interdwelling, co-inherence... this explains a lot to me.

BUT you also describe procession as being Father- Son - Spirit.

The great schism of the 11th century was a i suppose rooted in the discussion of this Orthodox view and the wording of the Nicence creed.

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of life who proceeds from the Father AND the Son. He has spoken through the prophets."

I suppose you think that the Catholic and therefore Protestant traditions have simply misread scripture on this issue?

Yes, there was the addition of the filioque by Rome without the total consent of the council of bishops at that time, if I recall right. What you quoted was the addition to the Creed by Rome a few centuries later.

The Nicene Creed originally read:

"And the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and Son, is worhiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets..."


That was one of the disagreements, but it was more than that that caused the Schism.

 

[Jpark]

nm

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I haven't read the thread but has anyone compared the similarity of the 3 parts of humans
body as the universe that the Father embodies
soul that is ours and God's representation of self in Jesus
spirit that is our invisable as is the Holy Spirit and in connection to comes truth and worship

 

[Deut 5:29]

I'd forgotten Genesis chapter 18 where God appears to Abraham as three men or three angels.

That's not what it says. It was obviously the Lord and two angels, not the Lord as three angels.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The trinity
Ephesians 1:3-14 can be seen as one sentence in which the 3-fold purpose of God is seen in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3-6 is the Father's plan,
7-12 is Jesus' accomplishments
13-14 is the Spirit's application.


3-6
The Father's selection and Predestination, Speaking forth God's Eternal Purpose

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
​

4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved;
​

7-12
The Son's Redemption, Speaking Forth the Accomplishment of God's Eternal Purpose

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
​

8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself,
10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.
11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory;
​

13-14
The Spirit's Sealing and Pledging, Speaking forth the application of God's Accomplished Purpose

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
​

(The Spirit applies ownership)
14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
​

The trinity in a nutshell

Each one of the three Persons ( hypostases ) of the Holy Trinity is the entire divinity. On this basis, the three divine persons dwell in one another ( perichoresis ) inter-dwelling, co-inherence. Each one of the three acts together with the other two; however, each of them relates to the creation in a personal way: the Father conceives the plan of creation (and of restoration of Creation in His Christ); the Son of God makes the Father's plan of creation (and the salvation of creation) a reality; the Holy Spirit leads God's (the Father's) plan of creation (and restoration of creation in Christ, the incarnate Logos of God) to its perfection.

Scripture only explained that as good as any traditional interpretation does.

 

[Willtor]

Agreed. Although this is one of my questions with the doctrine. Jesus suffers the finitude and pain of our humanity and the imperfection of our world and speaks to the Father about these struggles in Gethsemane and in John 17 and from the cross. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do... into your hands I commit my spirit." But does the Father feel pain, is his experience of the cross a shared one with Jesus, does he feel the nails as intensely?

No, I think not. Actually, this very issue was discussed during the time of Sabellius (the question as to whether the Father suffered on the cross). But this begins to get into the dual nature of Christ. I suppose that's inevitable when discussing the Trinity, but...

An activity of revision that took place after the life of Jesus on earth and not really before.

Perhaps, perhaps. But quite persuasive, nonetheless. I think it might be impossible to arrive at the paradox using the Old Testament alone. But with the incarnation, I think there is enough data to cause the undoing of conceptions, inherently. I.e., I think exploration of the Trinity is inherently anti-idolatrous because it forces one to grapple with the incomprehensibility of God.

Actually, now that I think of it, that is probably a spiritually edifying consequence of studying the Trinity.

True in Christ we are brought into immediate contact with the Trinitarian God and require no intermediary.

The Divine dance sounds exciting. the notion that communication between the three members of the Trinity is multileveled and of a joyous intensity and passion that the word dance might begin to describe it.

Yes, I like that, too. The ancient word is Perichoresis.

With Muslims I am not sure I would agree here. One of the things that prompted this OP was reading the Koran. I realised that the Trinity and Incarnation are the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam and that mistakes about scripture and redemption in the Koran for instance all stem from the positions taken by Muslims on these doctrines. In articulating the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation clearly we begin to explain why Christians unlike Muslims have a living and Intimate assured relationship with the Divine and why theologically this is possible. The friendship of God is something very different from the demand for blind submission. He gives us choices. He comes to us to see how we will name the animals for instance. In the Koran God names the animals and Adam passes them on to the angels.

Talking to an atheist or modern Western agnostic is of course a different kettle of fish as very often one is talking into a theological vacuum where there is next to no understanding.

Actually, I have found the most fruitful discussions I have had with Muslim friends has been to talk about Jesus as "the Word" in the sense that Islam thinks about that term. But if you'd start with the Trinity, I am not one to argue the point. In fact, more power to you. But although I perceive the Trinity, in one sense, as the grand unified theory of God (EO users will "love" me for that one ), in another sense I perceive it as the infield fly rule (I didn't make that up, I heard it somewhere, but I don't remember where).

Hinduisms confusion about ethics reflects the deep confusion at the theological level.

I understand that I cannot understand some of the things here. To be honest I would expect my human brain to be unable to reconcile or rationalise apparent paradoxes in the Divine nature. If God is truly God He will always be Other-strange-- Holy and beyond the limits of my potential comprehension. If He was not one capable of blowing the minds of His creatures then He would not be God. That he patiently and gently imparts understanding to us is a sign of his love´and commitment to relationship.

I suppose one would have to distinguish the conversation between God and us and that between the Eternal members of the Trinity as one would distinguish the conversation of a child or an adult but on an infinitely grander scale of course.

Lolz. Too true. If one were to say we relate to God as an ant relates to a man, one would be thinking too highly of us. This has actually been one of the greatest difficulties most of my non-theistic, agnostic, and deistic friends have had with religion (apart from the whole "holy wars" thing).

Water is the one I tend to use also . ice, steam and liquid but all water.

Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I despise them all. The one thing I like about the triple point is that you can't draw a picture of it. Really, nobody conceptualizes it. When I think of the triple point, I think of a graph and say, "see? Right there! I don't know what it means, but the data is difficult to refute."

 

[Christos Anesti]

That's Paul's theology and it's all anyone needs to know

.

... And then Saint Paul goes on to say:

"Now we do speak wisdom among the mature , but not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are perishing. 2:7 Instead we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, that God determined before the ages for our glory. 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it."


So... there is a wisdom that requires maturity to understand.

 

[RibI]

Jo. 1:1, 18.
Ro. 1:7.
1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2
Eph. 1:2.
Phil. 1:2.
Col. 1:21.
Thes. 1:1, 2 Thes 1:2.
1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2.
Titus 1:4.
1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:2.
1 Jo. 1:3; 2 Jo. 3.
Jude 1.
Rev. 1:5-6.
These guys all seem to be forgetting something. Don't they?
It's amazing that, these of all people, would not understand the trinity.

 

[Willtor]

Jo. 1:1, 18.
Ro. 1:7.
1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2
Eph. 1:2.
Phil. 1:2.
Col. 1:21.
Thes. 1:1, 2 Thes 1:2.
1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2.
Titus 1:4.
1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:2.
1 Jo. 1:3; 2 Jo. 3.
Jude 1.
Rev. 1:5-6.
These guys all seem to be forgetting something. Don't they?
It's amazing that, these of all people, would not understand the trinity.

Wait, what? It isn't totally clear to me whether you are arguing for or against the Trinity. Your comment at the end sounds like you are arguing against, but these are all passages I would use to make a case for the Trinity.

If you are arguing against, are you having a hard time with the one-ness or the three-ness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?