One God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity

[The Liturgist]

Did I not answer, that is is the judge of all theology. . .i.e., not the source of all theology.

But we do know that anything Paul received from the Lord will not disagree with the record we do have, because what Paul received from the Lord does not contradict itself, in what we do have.

Therefore, Scripture remains the judge of all theology.

I think even those of us who do not follow Sola Scriptura agree with that. For example, the Eastern Orthodox believe that Scripture is the vital living heart and the central and most important part of Holy Tradition, and no doctrine which contradicts it is admitted.

 

[The Liturgist]

Which ones did you have in mind?

Exerchomai specifically.

 

[Clare73]

Exerchomai specifically.

So the NT presents the Son as also proceeding from the Father, in John 8:42, John 16:27-28,
John 17:8, right?

 

[disciple Clint]

Did I not answer, that Scripture alone is the judge of all theology. . .i.e., not the source of all theology.

But we do know that anything Paul received from the Lord will not disagree with the record we do have, because what Paul received from the Lord does not contradict itself, in what we do have.

Therefore, Scripture alone remains the judge of all theology.

Well you have just defeated the argument for sola scriptura because you are admitting that there are things not written in the bible that must be accepted if they do not contradict the bible, the strict interpretation of sola scriptura is "if it is not in the book it is not to be accepted."

 

[concretecamper]

Well you have just defeated the argument for sola scriptura because you are admitting that there are things not written in the bible that must be accepted if they do not contradict the bible, the strict interpretation of sola scriptura is "if it is not in the book it is not to be accepted."

to be fair, I've seen many definitions of SS. All versions are not taught by the Bible

 

[Clare73]

Well you have just defeated the argument for sola scriptura because you are admitting that there are things not written in the bible that must be accepted if they do not contradict the bible, the strict interpretation of
sola scriptura is "if it is not in the book it is not to be accepted."

Or is it, "if it is not in agreement with the book it is not to be accepted"?

 

[disciple Clint]

to be fair, I've seen many definitions of SS. All versions are not taught by the Bible

Point in fact none of the versions of SS are anywhere taught in the Bible.

 

[disciple Clint]

Or is it, "if it is not in agreement with the book it is not to be accepted"?

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
What is sola scriptura? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Clare73]

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
What is sola scriptura? | GotQuestions.org

That is precisely what "Scripture alone is the judge of Christian truth" means.

 

[Yekcidmij]

So in the Bible we see -
Deut 6:4 - One God
Matt 28:19 - in Three Persons.

My main question is about that two step definition
1. ONE God
2. In THREE Persons.

does your definition of "Trinity" - your denomination's definition of the term - include both of those aspects???

Analogies are dangerous, but here is an analogy that is admittedly inadequate for obvious reasons, but maybe still useful to some extent:

The question I have here is, how many Marty McFly's are there in the final scene when the Libyans show up in the mall parking lot? There are clearly TWO "persons" who are properly "Marty McFly," but surely it would be wrong to say there are two BEINGS whose "essences" are somehow independent of one another? Surely there is only 1 "Marty McFly" in the movie, yet, in the final scene, we clearly see 2 Marty McFly's.

I think this is one example of a sort of "bi-nitarianism" (two persons, one being vice Trinitarianism where it's 3 persons, 1 being). The shortfalls in the analogy are pretty obvious: it's a fiction movie, everything depends on time travel, the two Marty McFly's don't know about each other and can't communicate with each other, aren't eternal, it's two instead of three etc, etc, etc...

I think the definition of Trinitarianism could be analogous to some extent. Another fun analogy, and maybe even more instructive, could be the ending to the movie Interstellar where the same sort of question could be posed of the character Cooper.

And there is some academic literature to suggest this sort of thing isn't as far out as it seems and I can provide a couple if interested and they'll include Brian Leftow, Benjamin Sommer, and Alan Segal.

 

[BobRyan]

Analogies are dangerous, but here is an analogy that is admittedly inadequate for obvious reasons, but maybe still useful to some extent:

The question I have here is, how many Marty McFly's are there in the final scene when the Libyans show up in the mall parking lot? There are clearly TWO "persons" who are properly "Marty McFly," but surely it would be wrong to say there are two BEINGS whose "essences" are somehow independent of one another? Surely there is only 1 "Marty McFly" in the movie, yet, in the final scene, we clearly see 2 Marty McFly's.

I think this is one example of a sort of "bi-nitarianism" (two persons, one being vice Trinitarianism where it's 3 persons, 1 being). The shortfalls in the analogy are pretty obvious: it's a fiction movie, everything depends on time travel, the two Marty McFly's don't know about each other and can't communicate with each other, aren't eternal, it's two instead of three etc, etc, etc...

I think the definition of Trinitarianism could be analogous to some extent. Another fun analogy, and maybe even more instructive, could be the ending to the movie Interstellar where the same sort of question could be posed of the character Cooper.

And there is some academic literature to suggest this sort of thing isn't as far out as it seems and I can provide a couple if interested and they'll include Brian Leftow, Benjamin Sommer, and Alan Segal.

Well it is on the topic - thanks for posting that.

 

[disciple Clint]

That is precisely what "Scripture alone is the judge of Christian truth" means.

OK feel free to try that logic with a true sola scriptura believer, who is going to simply say if it aint in the bible it aint the word of God and I aint going to believe it. Good luck I have fought that battle many times.

 

[Jonaitis]

The once traditional language in Christian Greek thought was mode of being, but being confused with Sabellianism (mode of person), it was likely abandoned for that reason. There is one God in three modes of being. Or, you could say God is one in substance, and three in subsistences.

 

[The Liturgist]

So the NT presents the Son as also proceeding from the Father, in John 8:42, John 16:27-28,
John 17:8, right?

Indeed, but I think this relates to the essence/energies distinction. I could be totally wrong so to avoid the risk of error I am going to request assistance from my go to guys for Christology and Palamism, and theology in general, @HTacianas and @prodromos.

 

[Andrewn]

I am going to request assistance from my go to guys for Christology and Palamism, and theology in general, @HTacianas and @prodromos.

"Eastern theologians stress that there must be only one Fount of Divinity within the Godhead, which is the Father. Thus the Son is begotten (gemnesis) of the Father and the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father."

"The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible," says St. John Damascene. "We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand."

Does the Son proceed from the Father?

 

[The Liturgist]

"Eastern theologians stress that there must be only one Fount of Divinity within the Godhead, which is the Father. Thus the Son is begotten (gemnesis) of the Father and the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father."

"The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible," says St. John Damascene. "We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand."

Does the Son proceed from the Father?

I knew the first paragraph but not the second, but in light of it I strongly suspect the Essence/Energies distinction applies to the cases raised by @Clare73 . Cheers.

 

[BobRyan]

"Eastern theologians stress that there must be only one Fount of Divinity within the Godhead, which is the Father. Thus the Son is begotten (gemnesis) of the Father and the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father."

Given that none of the three have beginning and so no one of them exists before any of the others - what meaning do you put into "begotten" and "proceeds from"??

For example - all of us are made up of atoms -- the Universe is made up of atoms - but that does not making us functioning persons all the time the universe has existed.

 

[Andrewn]

Given that none of the three have beginning and so no one of them exists before any of the others - what meaning do you put into "begotten" and "proceeds from"??

For example - all of us are made up of atoms -- the Universe is made up of atoms - but that does not making us functioning persons all the time the universe has existed.

The universe is not made up of atoms. I mentioned in post #26 that Dark Energy constitutes 68% of the universe. Normal/baryonic matter constitutes only 5% of the universe. The rest (27%) is called Dark Matter, which is not made up of atoms. I have no idea if any of this relates to God.

God is both omnipresent in the world as well as transcendent beyond the world. The way I understand it is that the Word and the Spirit were always in God. God never existed without his Word/Wisdom and his Spirit. Before time began, before the creation of the world, in eternity past, the Word was begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeded from the Father. s

The Son/Word is in the form of God (Php 2:6), He is the image of God (Col 1:15), the radiance of God's glory, and the express figure of his substance (Heb 1:3).

In the beginning, the Spirit of God hovered over the waters (Gen 1:2). After Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God and received the Holy Spirit from the Father, He poured out the power of the Holy Spirit (Act 2:33).

 

[BobRyan]

The universe is not made up of atoms.

Well in my post I was referencing our own composition "human bodies made of atoms" and the fact that those atoms are part of the universe of atoms.

Dark Energy is a 'guess' not an energy that anyone can reproduce ... same with "Dark Matter" as a containing force but no mass yet found to account for it being of a gravitational source. So no part of the human body is dark energy or dark matter.

My point was it is not logical to claim that we are as old as the universe simply because our substance comes from it.

 

[BobRyan]

The way I understand it is that the Word and the Spirit were always in God.

Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me" -- but "Word and Father in God" is not something I find in the text. In addition when Jesus said the above statement - he was an individual person, seen and talked to, and when He prays to the Father in John 17 - it does not appear that He is praying to Himself. So in whatever way He was at that time "in the Father" and "the Father in Him" it did not prevent Him from being a person and talking with people as a distinct person.