Explaining the Trinity

[Kencj]

Intellectually?

Jesus teaches that we are saved by faith.
Philosophy teaches that we are saved by intellect, or "gnosis" as you put it.
The choice is very clear.

The truth of God does not come from "Platonic, Neo-Platonic, Neo-Pythagorean, Aristotelian, and Stoic philosophy among other sources" and "gaining experiential gnosis" but from faith in Christ. No one knows God, Jesus says, except through him, through faith and not through philosophy.

 

[Kencj]

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.

Omigod, I'm sorry, but this is totally woo woo!
It's "not JUST knowledge of the archetype of beings"? How more neo-platonic (not to mention gnostic) could that statement be!
And notice that Jesus has nothing to do with it!!

Well I guess if it's "hesychasm" and not philosophy then the Triune God must be real for sure!
Who knew?

I'm afraid you've totally made my point.
I guess I should thank you.

 

[Christos Anesti]

The truth of God does not come from "Platonic, Neo-Platonic, Neo-Pythagorean, Aristotelian, and Stoic philosophy among other sources"

I agree. That was the one of the points I was making in my post.

1 Corinthians 2, 14: “Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually”.

The philosophers could not judge spiritually. Neither did the people who formulated the Greek, Aramaic, Latin etc... languages. Yet when we want to talk we use the terms and language available to us. That doesn't mean we accept the teachings of the philosophers or the pagans who invented the languages we use. In fact the Holy Fathers often gave subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) changes to the established terms when they used them. The term "hypostasis" in Christian thought has little in common with the old Aristotelian understanding of the term for example.

and "gaining experiential gnosis" but from faith in Christ.

Faith in Christ brings experiential gnosis of God. This allows a person to "judge spiritually". One experiences the presence of the Holy Spirit and His leadings. It is only with an illuminated heart that a person can theologize.

 

[Christos Anesti]

It's "not JUST knowledge of the archetype of beings"? How more neo-platonic (not to mention gnostic) could that statement be!

Of course it is neo-platonic. He was saying ITS NOT that. He was differentiating the goal of philosophy and that of theology . It is vision of God and NOT contemplation of the archetypes of being that the Christian seeks.

 

[Christos Anesti]

In fact he points to the Synodikon of Orthodoxy which states

"All who accept 'the Platonic ideas as true' and say and accept ' that matter is self existent' are anathematized. Likewise all who accept and spread ' the false and Hellenistic sayings', all who assert that souls pre-exist and that all things did not come into being from naught, and have gone astray' are anathematized."

 

[Kencj]

Of course it is neo-platonic. He was saying ITS NOT that. He was differentiating the goal of philosophy and that of theology . It is vision of God and NOT contemplation of the archetypes of being that the Christian seeks.

Excuse me but you need to read the text I'm referring to again.
"... This illumination of the nous is not just knowledge of the archetypes of beings,..."

I shouldn't have to explain this, but it is in fact just "that" -"knowledge of the archetypes of beings" plus whatever else he adds.
Jesus says "I am the light" not "the illumination of the nous is not just knowledge of the archetypes of beings, but the coming of the grace of God into the heart." Any child can understand and believe the former, the latter is pure greek philosophy. Or more specifically neo platonism.

For those who dont know what the "archetype of beings" is, it's straight out of Plotinus and his predecessor Plato's "realm of the forms", is it not?

And the "hypostasis" certainly does originate in Aristotle, whoever it was applied to hundreds of years later. Where in the Bible, as Micahel Servetus asked (and was burnt at the stake for it) is Christ the "hypostasis"?

 

[Secundulus]

Excuse me but you need to read the text I'm referring to again.
"... This illumination of the nous is not just knowledge of the archetypes of beings,..."

I shouldn't have to explain this, but it is in fact just "that" -"knowledge of the archetypes of beings" plus whatever else he adds.
Jesus says "I am the light" not "the illumination of the nous is not just knowledge of the archetypes of beings, but the coming of the grace of God into the heart." Any child can understand and believe the former, the latter is pure greek philosophy.

For those who dont know what the "archetype of beings" is, it's straight out of Plotinus and his predecessor Plato's "realm of the forms", is it not?

And the "hypostasis" certainly does originate in Aristotle, whoever it was applied to hundreds of years later. Where in the Bible, as Micahel Servetus asked (and was burnt at the stake for it) is Christ the "hypostasis"?

The notion of God coming to earth and dwelling among us in the flesh was both foolishness and anathema to the Greek philosophers. The argument that the hypostatic union is a Greek invention has no basis in reality.

The word itself is not in the bible. It is the attempt by early theologians to reconcile what is in the bible against heretics like Servetus.

 

[Kencj]

The notion of God coming to earth and dwelling among us in the flesh was both foolishness and anathema to the Greek philosophers. The argument that the hypostatic union is a Greek invention has no basis in reality.

The word itself is not in the bible. It is the attempt by early theologians to reconcile what is in the bible against heretics like Servetus.

What I said was that the term originates in Aristotle and was applied centuries later, in this case, to Christ, making him what you call "the hypostatic union".
You're only making my point that the Trinity originates in greek philosophy.

I'd love to hear what you think is heretical about Servetus but it would be going too far afield from this subject, I suppose. Nevertheless I can't resist making this quote from his 'On the Errors of the Trinity';

“... I see these men approaching their lofty speculation about the Word without having any fundamental understanding of Christ, and they attach little or no importance to the man, and give the true Christ quite over to oblivion.”

 

[Kencj]

Who is "is the reflection of God's glory and the exact likeness of his being", Christ or the Trinity?

Who is "the image of the invisible God", Christ or the Trinity?

Who is the one who we worship as the very incarnation of God, Christ or the Trinity?

Who is the one "who loved us and gave his life for us", Christ or the Trinity?

Who do we wait for to return from heaven, Christ or the Trinity?

Who will judge the world in the last day, Christ or the Trinity?

What use then, I ask, is the Trinity but to rob Christ of his full glory, confuse believers, and offend nonbelievers for whom Christ, and not the Trinity, died?
Christ in not a "hypostasis" or an "ousia" but the Lord and Savior of the world.

Let it rot, then, in mouldy books in forgotten corners until it's gone forever.

 

[Thekla]

What I said was that the term originates in Aristotle and was applied centuries later, in this case, to Christ, making him what you call "the hypostatic union".
You're only making my point that the Trinity originates in greek philosophy.

I'd love to hear what you think is heretical about Servetus but it would be going too far afield from this subject, I suppose. Nevertheless I can't resist making this quote from his 'On the Errors of the Trinity';

“... I see these men approaching their lofty speculation about the Word without having any fundamental understanding of Christ, and they attach little or no importance to the man, and give the true Christ quite over to oblivion.”

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.

 

[Thekla]

If it hasn't been mentioned:

the revelation of the Trinity at the baptism of Christ
the Spirit leading Christ in the wilderness
the great commission given by Christ in Matthew (baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit)
the words of Christ (... the Spirit blows where it will ...)
Christ (the Son) is conceived by the Holy Spirit ("...the Holy Spirit will come upon you ...")


as for illumination:
Moses' face illumined after conversing with God
Acts, the face of Stephen "as an angel" ( angels repeatedly depicted in the Bible as luminous)

 

[Secundulus]

What I said was that the term originates in Aristotle and was applied centuries later, in this case, to Christ, making him what you call "the hypostatic union".
You're only making my point that the Trinity originates in greek philosophy.

The Trinity originates in heaven. The word to describe it is borrowed from the Greeks. We are saying to entirely different things.

I'd love to hear what you think is heretical about Servetus but it would be going too far afield from this subject, I suppose. Nevertheless I can't resist making this quote from his 'On the Errors of the Trinity';

“... I see these men approaching their lofty speculation about the Word without having any fundamental understanding of Christ, and they attach little or no importance to the man, and give the true Christ quite over to oblivion.”

You described his heresy yourself.

 

[Willtor]

It is a conclusion drawn from greek philosophy by "church fathers" centuries after the Bible was written, as has been clearly established in this thread by contributors other than me.

No. It was a conclusion drawn from Scripture. I believe that you have seen it described in philosophical terms, but saying that it was drawn from philosophy is entirely mistaken.

I could just as easily argue that creating confusion by making God into three persons is impious. Jesus makes it clear that even little children can grasp the true nature of God.

And if I'm wrong, then it _is_ impious. However, my point was not to argue that your view that God is not Triune was impious, but that your attitude of treating anything of which you could not conceive must be false. Again, you can't get very far in life with that attitude.

I can recall being completely confused by the Trinity as a child and becoming an atheist later because of it. What kind of messed up God is that? was my conclusion.
But that's just me, and plenty of others out there.

Well, that's a start I guess.

No, if I were a God with three persons inside me, I would certainly be confused. Christians don't revere the supposed "God in three persons" (or is it "three persons in God"?) but the God in Christ.

Perhaps you would be. But, to be fair, you are already confused on many points on which many other finite people are not. I'm not prepared to take a generalization from your finite condition and apply it to the infinite God. It might help if you were more open to the possibility that God can handle (conceptually and otherwise) things that you and I cannot and do not.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I shouldn't have to explain this, but it is in fact just "that" -"knowledge of the archetypes of beings" plus whatever else he adds

He was saying that theology goes beyond philosophy and is of a different order all together. The one is concerned with contemplating the archetypes of being and the other goes beyond that and seeks contemplation of God.

it's straight out of Plotinus and his predecessor Plato's "realm of the forms", is it not?

I can assure you the Metropolitan does not believe in the Platonic "world of forms" in fact he quotes the Synodikon of Orthodoxy that anathmatizes those who teach it. "All who accept 'the Platonic ideas as true' are anathamatized."

 

[Christos Anesti]

Christ and Him crucified can be grasped in faith even by babes that is true. But there is milk for the babes but also meat for the mature. There is a wisdom taught to the "mature"(NIV), "mature believers (NLT)", or "the perfect"(KJV).

1 Corinthians 2

Proclaiming Christ Crucified

1And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a](A) did not come proclaiming to you(B) the testimony[b] of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except(C) Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And(D) I was with you(E) in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of(F) the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but(G) in the power of God.
Wisdom from the Spirit

6Yet among(H) the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not(I) a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age,(J) who are doomed to pass away. 7But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God,(K) which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8None of(L) the rulers of this age understood this, for(M) if they had, they would not have crucified(N) the Lord of glory. 9But, as it is written,

(O) "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has(P) prepared(Q) for those who love him"—
10these things(R) God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even(S) the depths of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts(T) except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now(U) we have received not(V) the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this(W) in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit,(X) interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.[c

 

[Christos Anesti]

Who is "is the reflection of God's glory and the exact likeness of his being", Christ or the Trinity?
Who is "the image of the invisible God", Christ or the Trinity?
Who is the one who we worship as the very incarnation of God, Christ or the Trinity?
Who is the one "who loved us and gave his life for us", Christ or the Trinity?
Who do we wait for to return from heaven, Christ or the Trinity?
Who will judge the world in the last day, Christ or the Trinity?

Christ who is one of the Holy Trinity.

 

[sungaunga]

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.

 

[mindlight]

i would appeal to certain jewish cocepts such as devar adonai, the targumic concept of memra, the motif of shekinah and a whole raft of other pre-new-testament ideas as the bedrock for this belief.

for those looking for a jewish slant, cosider this link.


steve

Perhaps you could elaborate a little on what these concepts mean?

 

[mindlight]

1) Could you begin to demonstrate that the Bible actually teaches the Trinity even though it never uses the word

The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is quite fascinating and goes far deeper than I am going to address. I would highly recommend reading Eastern sources along those lines.

However, a cursory reading of the first chapter of the Gospel of John indicates quite strongly that although there is only one God, there is some form of distinction within Him -- i.e., between Himself and His eternal Word, through which He made all things. However, when the Word became Incarnate, this was not "a piece of God" as though God were divisible. So, as to the Son (who is also called the Word) one has it from John that he is God. However, the Son is the Father. A glib way of putting this is that Jesus wasn't talking to himself when he prayed.

A similar case can be made for the Holy Spirit, especially from the book of Acts, though I am not immediately aware of any language quite as strong as John's regarding the matter.

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?

2) Could you provide an Old Testament defence of this? Why is their no awareness of this idea before Christ in the Jewish community?

What you're asking about was actually a very popular practice in the early Church. Many of the Church Fathers talk about instances of the various Persons making appearances in the Old Testament. Justin Martyr has the earliest extant (as far as I'm aware) non-New Testament argument along these lines.

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

3) What does the Trinity say about the nature of God- what insight does it give us into God?

There, you should definitely read some of the theological literature (especially, though not exclusively from the East). Exploring insofar as one is able is a substantially spiritually rewarding practice. As an example, as touching true and eternal Divinity in Christ, knowledge of the Word is, itself, knowledge of God. In this sense, there is no intermediary between us and the Godhead. As for Christ raising us up in the atonement, it is a call into the so-called Divine dance.

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.

4) What does it mean for our Christian lives to believe in a Trinitarian God as opposed to a Monotheistic one like the Jews or Muslims believe in? How does believing in the Trinity distinguish us from Polytheists also?

To the first point, Trinitarianism is monotheistic. As to arguing the Trinity to one who, as yet, has no interest in following Christ, it feels to me kind of like putting the cart before the horse. With regard to polytheism, if the gods are not always agreed, what is pious?

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.

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

5) With what simple analogies would you try and explain the Trinity to someone else?

One of the troubles with much of doctrine (as with many things) is that many people don't understand that they can't understand... or worse: some think they _do_ understand. There is the example of the triple point, wherein a substance is simultaneously fully solid, liquid, and gas. But even that is a pale analogy at best.

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.

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

 

[Dorothea]

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