God: One entity, or three?

[Nemo Neem]

I know Methodists adhere to the Triune God concept, but the other Methodist Church in my hometown believes that Jesus was God showing Himself to us, which I believe. Would this be contradictory to Methodist teaching? John even says this in his gospel.

 

[Historicus]

No, that is what all Christians profess. Methodists declare this in our second Article.

This is called the Incarnation, where the "Word was made flesh to dwell among us".

Article II—Of the Word, or Son of God, Who Was Made Very Man
The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

 

[Nemo Neem]

No, that is what all Christians profess. Methodists declare this in our second Article.

This is called the Incarnation, where the "Word was made flesh to dwell among us".

Article II—Of the Word, or Son of God, Who Was Made Very Man
The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

Thanks, svdbygrace. I always thought Jesus was God. I thought that was a Catholic concept.

 

[Maid Marie]

Thanks, svdbygrace. I always thought Jesus was God. I thought that was a Catholic concept.

Jesus is God...and is also called the Son of God or the Son of Man. It is a belief shared by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

 

[Tsadde]

Just cruising by when I noticed this question. Recently I heard someone describe the triune God in a way my wee mind could almost comprehend. She said that we would not say, "I'm taking the Nemo body for a walk." or "The Nemo mind, will and emotions and I had an interesting exchange about the nature of God." or "The Nemo spirit is very sensitive to the love of God." Now we, not being God can find our bodies awkwardly separated from the rest of us, which makes us sort of dead, but God is always perfectly in One piece. You can't involve the Father without the Son and the Holy Spirit also being there.

God, of course, is Holy Other, and something completely different from anything we have experienced, but it makes sense that since we are created in the image of God, that we would reflect his Triune-ness.

Does this make sense to you?

 

[lucaspa]

I know Methodists adhere to the Triune God concept, but the other Methodist Church in my hometown believes that Jesus was God showing Himself to us, which I believe. Would this be contradictory to Methodist teaching? John even says this in his gospel.

When you say "Jesus was God", then you have 2 parts of the Trinity. The third, of course, is the Holy Spirit (Ghost). So "Jesus was God" is an essential part of the concept of Trinity.

In Greek, Trinity is three "personas" in one "ousia". Three "personalities" in one "substance" or "person".

 

[lucaspa]

God, of course, is Holy Other, and something completely different from anything we have experienced, but it makes sense that since we are created in the image of God, that we would reflect his Triune-ness.

Does this make sense to you?

Sense, yes. Accuracy? Not so much. There are a couple of analogies that will help you understand Trinity. One of them was by Tertullian:
Think of a great river, like the Mississippi. Now think of the river at its source, midcourse -- like at St. Paul, and at its mouth -- New Orleans.

At the source the Mississippi is a little creek. At St. Paul it is a fast flowing medium sized river between high bluffs. At New Orleans it is a slowly moving very wide river and full of silt. The river appears very different at the different places you look at it, but it is the same river. Same river, different aspects.

Or, think of the different roles you play in your life: spouse, co-worker, father, say. You behave differently in all 3 roles. There are things you do as spouse that you do not do as co-worker or father. And things you do as father that you do not do as spouse or co-worker. Different personalities, same person. That one is closer to Trinity in that Trinity has God with 3 personas or "personalities" in one ousia.

Now, the "image of God" gets badly misinterpreted. Because we have lost the context of the time. We always try to make it seem that some part of us is like God: our personal appearance, our spirit, His triune-ness, etc.

Instead, I had it explained to me many years ago that, at the time, "in the image" meant something very different. In those days of very slow communication, an ambassador or business factor could not always refer back to the king or business owner over decisions. It would simply take too long. So such people were given authority to make treaties or deals as tho the king or business owner were doing it. When they had this power, they were said to be "in the image" of the king or business owner.

So the phrase in Genesis 1 is about power, not likeness. This is reinforced in the next sentence, where God gives humans "dominion" over the earth. "in the image" and "dominion" are 2 ways of saying the same thing (common practice in those days, to make the point): how we as humans act on the earth; how we interact with other species, will be as tho God were acting. We have the power.

 

[Tsadde]

"In those days of very slow communication, an ambassador or business factor could not always refer back to the king or business owner over decisions. It would simply take too long. So such people were given authority to make treaties or deals as tho the king or business owner were doing it. When they had this power, they were said to be "in the image" of the king or business owner." -lucaspa

Pardon my limited intellect. Do I understand you correctly? It seems to me that this would imply that the lower Mississippi is incommunicado with the head waters whilst functioning in its way -like a body doing the best it can while the soul and spirit are functioning elsewhere. This presents not only a problem with understanding time, but understanding space. To me, in the complete unity of the Godhead there is no separation. One part of the Trinity would not act independently of the others. One part may appear to be the dominating function as a body running, but the soul and spirit would be there as well, functioning AND in complete agreement with the body.

 

[lucaspa]

"In those days of very slow communication, an ambassador or business factor could not always refer back to the king or business owner over decisions. It would simply take too long. So such people were given authority to make treaties or deals as tho the king or business owner were doing it. When they had this power, they were said to be "in the image" of the king or business owner." -lucaspa

Pardon my limited intellect. Do I understand you correctly? It seems to me that this would imply that the lower Mississippi is incommunicado with the head waters whilst functioning in its way -like a body doing the best it can while the soul and spirit are functioning elsewhere.

No. It means that "in his image" and Trinity are 2 separate things. You can't use "in his image" to try to equate humans to God via Trinity. "in his image" does not mean that we resemble God in any fashion. Instead, it means that God empowers us to act (in a limited area) as tho God were acting. The limited area is "dominion over the earth". Whatever we do to the earth God will back us. He will not step in and change it or stop us.

To me, in the complete unity of the Godhead there is no separation. One part of the Trinity would not act independently of the others.

There are no "others". For this I think the analogy of different parts of our personality that we show to different people is better. The you that makes love to your wife is the same you that scolds your daughter for leaving the freezer door open. Yet you would not have sex with your daughter nor scold your wife in the same words and tone you scolded your daughter. It's the same "you", but you behave differently to different people and in different situations. Your daughter never sees you as lover and your wife never has the disciplinarian father addressed to her.

In the Trinity we see different aspects of God's total personality. God in His role as Christ acts a bit differently than God acts as the Father.

Is that clearer?

 

[GraceSeeker]

In the Trinity we see different aspects of God's total personality. God in His role as Christ acts a bit differently than God acts as the Father.

Is that clearer?

Just be careful that in calling attention to the distinctiveness of the three persons you don't slip into modalism.

I like the metaphor of a dance. A dance is not a solo act. Dance requires the participation of a partner. In the perichoresis of God it is a dance with three partners that continually move around each other. While we can look at each of their individual movements, we are not truly observing the whole dance of God unless we look at their interactions with each other as much as we do the actions they do on their own.

 

[Nemo Neem]

Just be careful that in calling attention to the distinctiveness of the three persons you don't slip into modalism.

I like the metaphor of a dance. A dance is not a solo act. Dance requires the participation of a partner. In the perichoresis of God it is a dance with three partners that continually move around each other. While we can look at each of their individual movements, we are not truly observing the whole dance of God unless we look at their interactions with each other as much as we do the actions they do on their own.

Yes, but there are still two distinct 'entities.'

 

[GraceSeeker]

Yes, but there are still two distinct 'entities.'

I'm not sure about that. I think when we talk about God we are actually talking about the partnering, so the entity that we label as God is the whole. The persons are distinctive of each other, but once we no longer observe them in interaction with each other and part of the whole, we aren't really talking about God any more than we are talking about a human when we examine just our heart or some other member of the body. Just as a human being is more than the sum of flesh, bone, blood, and sinew; so too God is more than combining the three persons of the Trinity together in some mathematical equation. Thus I perceive that there is really not just one substance, but one being (or to use your terminology, one entity) that exists in three persons.

 

[Historicus]

This is why Christianity uses the term "person" instead of "being" or "entity" like the Mormons for example do.

While Wesley did not necessarily agree with its condemnation of so many people, he did agree with the contents of the Athanasian Creed. It describes what orthodox Christianity believes about the Trinity and what that faith is. It like so many of the early affirmations of the faith were written to prevent heresy.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

 

[lucaspa]

Just be careful that in calling attention to the distinctiveness of the three persons you don't slip into modalism.

I like the metaphor of a dance. A dance is not a solo act. Dance requires the participation of a partner. In the perichoresis of God it is a dance with three partners that continually move around each other.

And you're worried about me slipping into "modalism"? You've got three separate partners and not just one person.

Modalism is when you just say that the differences are what we "perceive" and not three distinct "personas". Humans do have distinct personas within our one "substance". The co-worker, spouse, and parent are distinct personas. There is no "dance" of these three. They are distinct parts of us.

 

[lucaspa]

I think when we talk about God we are actually talking about the partnering, so the entity that we label as God is the whole.

But now you are outside Trinity. "Partnering" occurs between separate individuals, not within a single individual.

The persons are distinctive of each other, but once we no longer observe in interaction with each other and part of the whole,

Actually, this appears to be modalism. "the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself." Sabellianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus I perceive that there is really not just one substance, but one being (or to use your terminology, one entity) that exists in three persons.

This is closer to the traditional formulation of Trinity. "Ousia" is Greek and is translated as "substance". Svdbygrace has already looked at why Christians use "person" rather than "being". "Persona" in Greek (the original formulation was "3 personas in 1 ousia") corresponds most closely with "personality" in modern English. But even that isn't exact, since we are not implying that God has multiple personalities. Perhaps "role" would be better. God has 3 distinct "roles" He plays: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But all those roles are done by a single person.

 

[lucaspa]

Yes, but there are still two distinct 'entities.'

If there are two distinct entities, then that means two distinct gods. So no, there is only one God. Three distinct "personas".

 

[Nemo Neem]

If there are two distinct entities, then that means two distinct gods. So no, there is only one God. Three distinct "personas".

Then don't call them "persons." Call them "aspects," or "personalities," because if you call the Trinity "three persons yet one," then they are three persons in agreement, like the Mormons.

There is one God, of three likenesses (or personalities), one being the Father (the Creator and Father of Children), the Son (the "divine Son," who we are trying to be), and the Holy Spirit (or God's Soul, who resides in us all).

THAT I can accept, whereby Jesus is God the Father Incarnate, who, after baptism, allows His Spirit (the Holy Ghost) to reside within us all.

 

[GraceSeeker]

But now you are outside Trinity. "Partnering" occurs between separate individuals, not within a single individual.

I don't think so...

First, because I said that I like the picture of a dance. I don't say that the dance is anything more than a metaphor. Metaphors are figures of speech that help to explicate an idea or thought that (in this case) is outside of our understanding with a reference that comes from within our experience. But the description provided by the metaphor is not synonymous with the actual thing described, and indeed may fail at important points for no metaphor is going to be a point for point parallel of that which it is describing, nor is it an attempt to do so. Take the illustration for what it is, and don't make the mistake of trying to stretch it too far beyond the point of showing the nature of the interdependence of the three persons within the Godhead.

Second, the idea of perichoresis is not original to me, but to Tertullian the very person who also coined the term trinitas to describe the three-in-one God. So, I think I'm in good standing in using it as a reference to Trinity.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Then don't call them "persons." Call them "aspects," or "personalities," because if you call the Trinity "three persons yet one," then they are three persons in agreement, like the Mormons.

There is one God, of three likenesses (or personalities), one being the Father (the Creator and Father of Children), the Son (the "divine Son," who we are trying to be), and the Holy Spirit (or God's Soul, who resides in us all).

THAT I can accept, whereby Jesus is God the Father Incarnate, who, after baptism, allows His Spirit (the Holy Ghost) to reside within us all.

The problem appears to be with language more than theology.

The term "person" as most 21st century English speakers use it and the term "person" as most 4th century Greeks used it have different meanings. We who today read the early church fathers in English find that we are stuck with the term "person" but must reconstruct our understanding of its meaning if we are to apprehend what they were talking about.

Nemo, I actually think your final paragraph is theologically very close to what the early Church had experienced and was trying to articulate.

 

[Nemo Neem]

The problem appears to be with language more than theology.

The term "person" as most 21st century English speakers use it and the term "person" as most 4th century Greeks used it have different meanings. We who today read the early church fathers in English find that we are stuck with the term "person" but must reconstruct our understanding of its meaning if we are to apprehend what they were talking about.

Nemo, I actually think your final paragraph is theologically very close to what the early Church had experienced and was trying to articulate.

Thank you, kind sir.

Which is why I never understood, especially the Calvinist concept, of "three, yet one." The Mormons preach three gods of one godhead. I have always believed that Jesus Christ was/is God. So when I read the Bible, especially as a little kid, I always thought there were three gods.

When Jesus speaks of "God the Father," I believe he's actually speaking of Himself, but referring to Himself in the third-person to make a point. "I love my Father, as I love you," meaning "I love Myself, and you should love Me also." It's all metaphorical, but divinely-inspired lessons.

I was criticized by some Presbyterian and Lutheran friends of mine long ago who said that Jesus is not God Incarnate, and they laughed at me and told me that was some "Catholic concept."

A closer, methodical reading of the Bible will answer that question.