Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Here are some of my observations:
These questions are to some extent going beyond the ancient creeds. But I think most of what we associate with personality is one in the Trinity. That specifically includes will. I believe there is also a single operation.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica defines personality as follows:
"Personality, a characteristic way of
thinking, feeling, and behaving. Personality embraces moods, attitudes, and opinions and is most clearly expressed in interactions with other people. It includes behavioral characteristics, both
inherent and acquired, that distinguish one person from another and that can be observed in people’s relations to the
environment and to the
social group."
"The study of personality can be said to have its origins in the fundamental idea that people are distinguished by their characteristic individual patterns of behaviour—the distinctive ways in which they walk, talk, furnish their living quarters, or express their urges. Whatever the behaviour, personologists—as those who systematically study personality are called—examine how people differ in the ways they express themselves and attempt to determine the causes of these differences."
We accept that the Holy Trinity has one will. Does this necessarily imply one personality? I'm not convinced and neither are the articles I quoted in post #14.
I don't think the way to talk with people about the Trinity is to try and explain ousia and hypostasis, because that doesn't help someone understand why the idea is there in the first place.
Yes, this is exactly the issue. The
International Consultation on English Texts published an English translation of the Nicene Creed in 1975. This was included in the 1978
Lutheran Book of Worship and the 1979 Episcopal Church
Book of Common Prayer. This translation made a great decision by rendering "ousia" into "being."
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
I suggest instead starting with the concept that Jesus shows us God. If Jesus shows us God, what kind of God does he show us? A purely monadic God as in Islam won't do, because as Muslims are clear, that kind of God can't be born and die. The God that Jesus shows us has in his own experience both the creative authority of the father and the obedience of the son. The assumption here is that Jesus' obedient love isn't something that Jesus invented for himself, but that it reflects God. If so, then God has within himself both sides of the relationship of love. Indeed for Augustine (who is really the most important theologian in the West), what makes the Trinity is relationship.
Great. I like this. I hope
@Tellyontellyon is listening.
There's only enough distinction among the persons as are needed for there to be a relationship.
The ICET dealt with the word "ousia." We still need to deal with the word "hypostasis." You described the persons as 3 "entities" in a previous message and I heard many Christians use "entities" in private conversations. I like it a lot better than "persons." Are there any theological objections to this?
We can also say 3 "modes." The word "mode" is currently used quite a bit in computers and other electronic devices and it is well understood. Objections come from resemblance to the concept of "modalistic monarchism." But if we make sure we're talking about "eternally-coexistent modes" then that is clearly different from the modalism. No?
I know there are theological objections to everything
but is one of these good enough? Can we say this to a Muslim, an Atheist or the Buddhist in the OP?
