One God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity

[Akita Suggagaki]

In the context of the Trinity, this is exactly the _wrong_ definition of "substance." You can make so many different pagan gods with the same substance.

Well by "akin to material substance" I don't mean matter. We have see the evolution of our understanding of material substance, from molecules to atoms to the subatomic. Perhaps what I am referring to here is the deepest fact of God's reality as it is in itself, rather than our idea of who God is.

 

[Clare73]

In the Nicene Creed we have:
What We Believe
Notice no mention of "person".
The key term for the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father and then the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son". Once again , as in transubstantiation" we have the word "SUBSTANCE". That is what these entities share.

There could be said to be two rather different ways of characterizing the philosophical concept of substance. The first is the more generic. The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’. According to the generic sense, therefore, the substances in a given philosophical system are those things that, according to the system, are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality.

The second use of the concept is more specific. According to this, substances are a particular kind of basic entity, and some philosophical theories acknowledge them and others do not.

Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now, what exactly do we mean by "substance". i am still not sure.

Their essence, the properties that make them what they are.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Their essence, the properties that make them what they are.

Such as... Love? justice? kindness? These seem more like attributes.

I think we can only leave it at mystery. The deepest fact of God's reality as it is in itself seems beyond our human understanding. I can respect that.

 

[BobRyan]

Every person could be a Trinitarian depending on

1) how they define the word "person" and on

2) how they understand the relationship of the Father and the Son in eternity, and on

3) how they understand the relationship of the Father and the Son in the atonement.

It is more your personal beliefs than your denomination's statement of faith.

Certainly that can be the case -- but I am interested in denominational statements that people believe are consistent with "One God in three Persons". I think I see it in the "Baptist Faith and Message" when they get to statements about God - but would like people's input here on what groups they see as taking a compatible view to the statement "One God in three Persons".

So while this is not an exhaustive "definition of God" - and many people will agree that God is infinite and can't be measured in a test tube... still I am looking for the general idea of compatibility with that statement.

 

[BobRyan]

Lately though I have been wondering about the sense of "substance".

We can have something like wood is the substance of a type of bowl. And yet a bowl also has another substance, "bowlness". Just because something is wood does not make it a bowl. An ideal substance is required. and yet for a wooden bowl "wood" is its material substance. So when we talk about God are we talking about ideal substance (like the substance of an argument) or something more akin to material substance (like the substance of wood)?

Ontological we are all human -- yet we are many persons.

Ontologically The Father and the Son and Holy Spirit - are "God" but are three persons each having distinct roles and a relationship with each other as stated in the Bible. But because God is infinite by definition -- nothing we think of actually totally encompasses the definition or existence of the Godhead.

 

[Andrewn]

Perhaps what I am referring to here is the deepest fact of God's reality as it is in itself, rather than our idea of who God is.

The Nicene Creed describes Christ as "Light from Light, true God from true God." God is described as "light" a multitude of times in the Bible and the Fathers. Light is energy. What if his essence is energy. In the 21st century, physicists came up w/ the concept of Dark Energy to compensate for the gravity of Dark Matter, otherwise the universe would collapse in a Big Crunch.

No one knows the origin or nature of dark energy but cosmologists estimate that it makes up 68% of everything in the universe.

 

[Clare73]

Such as... Love? justice? kindness? These seem more like attributes.

Eternal, omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.

I think we can only leave it at mystery.

What is revealed is no longer mystery (hidden).

The deepest fact of God's reality as it is in itself seems beyond our human understanding. I can respect that.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Words have to mean something, and we have to hold common definitions to the words we all use.
We sometimes hear people lapse into terminology such as "it is black, yet it is white." Well no. It is one or the other... it is not both. We hear this "something yet something else" a lot in theology. Most often it is used when a proponent of a teaching cannot justify contradictions in his ideas. We hear "it is three yet one." No. it is not "three yet one." We have to escape such terminology because it weakens our teaching and understanding. In our legal system, we will very often see a law thrown out by the courts because it is too vague and cannot be enforced in a logical and consistent way.
I think the "trinity" teaching could be an example of this sort of confusion.
Some might say "oh, but it is a mystery, the concept of God is too big for our minds to understand."
I am going to have to disagree with my friends. Jesus came to show us the Father. He came to remove the mystery. If we cannot understand God and the Father, then we have to ask if Jesus failed? I do not believe He failed. He explained the relationship exactly and perfectly. If He came and successfully revealed the Father to us, then it is no longer a Mystery. We only get confused when we try to force what He said into our own theological framework. There is nothing about the collection of words Jesus spoke about the Father that is "too big" to understand. The simple truths He spoke are entirely within any intelligent person's mind to understand. We do ourselves and our students a great disservice when we attempt to confuse and re-hide the truth about God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In my own life and spiritual walk, I felt great freedom once I simply held what He said to be true and let loose of the many confusing things I have been told about God.
Peace

 

[Andrewn]

In my own life and spiritual walk, I felt great freedom once I simple held what He said to be true and let loose of the many confusing things I have been told about God.

So, how do you understand the relationship of God the Father and the Son in eternity and after the incarnation?

 

[Clare73]

So, how do you understand the relationship of God the Father and the Son in eternity and after the incarnation?

The same. . .

The Son is subject to the Father in eternity,
and also now, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name (John 5:13, 36, 43).

The Spirit is subject to the Father in eternity,
and also now, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26).

The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father in eternity,
and also now, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as by the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26).

The Father ordains,
the Son executes what the Father ordains,
the Spirit applies what the Father ordained and the Son executed.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The Nicene Creed describes Christ as "Light from Light, true God from true God." God is described as "light" a multitude of times in the Bible and the Fathers. Light is energy. What if his essence is energy. In the 21st century, physicists came up w/ the concept of Dark Energy to compensate for the gravity of Dark Matter, otherwise the universe would collapse in a Big Crunch.

No one knows the origin or nature of dark energy but cosmologists estimate that it makes up 68% of everything in the universe.

"Light" is also used for intelligence, consciousness, understanding.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And yet,

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped." (Philippians 2:6)

 

[Andrewn]

"Light" is also used for intelligence, consciousness, understanding.

Yes, and this how the creative God is described. His essence is "the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth, consciousness and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes."

And yet, "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped." (Philippians 2:6)

How do you understand "the form of God"?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yes, and this how the creative God is described. His essence is "the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth, consciousness and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes."


How do you understand "the form of God"?

Good question. In the creation account even Adam was crated in God's image and likeness. I think what is mean here must be more like substance.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

So, how do you understand the relationship of God the Father and the Son in eternity and after the incarnation?

Let me suggest there is a little bit of that "framework" I was talking about in this question.
I do not try to explain these things if they were not addressed by Jesus. How do we know the question and the principles this question is based upon are even valid? It is like demanding from someone: "So how do you understand that a bird is a tree?" Well, I cannot. I do not hold to the concept that a bird is a tree, so I cannot explain it, and really am not going to try. To try to answer the non-sensical question gives validity to that false concept. It is an all-lose situation.
We know from the scripture that the Word was in God in eternity (before any creation). We also know that God gave birth to the Word at which time there was a Father and a Son. Words in the original texts actually use the term "uterus" and "womb." Some have referred to this as the first event in creation. The Son was not created, but His emergence from the Father initiated the creation of all things. When the fullness of time came, the Father prepared a human body for the Son, and He was born as Jesus the Lord and Christ. I do not see where any of this is mysterious or beyond our ability to perceive or comprehend.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

And yet,

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped." (Philippians 2:6)

Let us note that the words "And yet," are not in the scripture:

Philippians 2

1. 
   [5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
   [6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
   [7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
   [8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

It means exactly what it says. The divine Son of God chose to make Himself a servant for the specific purpose of being susceptible to death. Something He could otherwise never endure.

 

[1an]

Lately though I have been wondering about the sense of "substance".

We can have something like wood is the substance of a type of bowl. And yet a bowl also has another substance, "bowlness". Just because something is wood does not make it a bowl. An ideal substance is required. and yet for a wooden bowl "wood" is its material substance. So when we talk about God are we talking about ideal substance (like the substance of an argument) or something more akin to material substance (like the substance of wood)?

You have a good illustration there, and if I may, I would like to take it to a deeper level by saying that what we see is a wooden bowl but if we take a slice of wood and put it under a microscope we see a very different, beautiful and complex structure.

Back in Palestine most people saw only a man, but those with eyes to see the inner man, were looking at the creator. God bless.
.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

In the Nicene Creed we have:


The key term for the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father and then the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

..."and the Son"...is NOT in the original Nicene Creed, it was a Roman addition...

 

[Skye1300]

I'm Catholic and we believe in he Trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 3 in one.

"Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God's works."

---the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 198

Catholic belief is succinctly expressed in the profession of faith or credo called the Nicene Creed:

The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[disciple Clint]

@BobRyan speaking of the Trinity, you might be troubled to know that a few months back an Adventist on one of the forums said to me something to the effect that SDA doctrine is that while Jesus Christ was on Earth he was not God.

This would contradict the Nicene Creed and John 1:1-17 where it states Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and thus I believe this is not the case and the member was in error, because if you deny the Incarnation, you deny the Nicene Creed and a nominal belief in the Trinity is meaningless, for even the Mormons profess a belief in the Trinity although their doctrine is actually Tritheistic. And since SDAs agree with the Statement of Faith which include the Nicene Creed, I am certain they were in error. I don’t recall offhand who said it, but I might be able to search for it.

and worst of all if Jesus was not God at all times then we are not saved.