The Source of the Trinity

[Constantine the Sinner]

A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).

My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?

 

[Jipsah]

I understand both positions in a basic kind of way, but as far as having an opinion on them, that's well above my pay grade.

 

[civilwarbuff]

A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).

My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?

I don't think most Christians give a hoot; they don't understand it and don't see understanding it as necessary for salvation. Let the theologians argue about it, that way they can justify that education they have......

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I understand both positions in a basic kind of way, but as far as having an opinion on them, that's well above my pay grade.

The simple distinction between the positions is that one, the Catholic, sees God's essence as foundation of the Trinity, whereas the Orthodox see the Father's existence as the basis of the Trinity. In the Catholic conception, the three persons are distinguished in the Trinity purely by relationships--that is all they are, three relationships. In the Orthodox conception, each person of the Trinity is concrete and distinct existence of God, not just God's three relationships with himself.

 

[Greg J.]

Just to state the unstated, Jesus said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and then talked like it was He (Jesus) who would be with them as a result. I'm not sure how the question in the OP arises. There is no source of the Trinity. It is the same as asking what the source of God is.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Just to state the unstated, Jesus said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and then talked like it was He (Jesus) who would be with them as a result. I'm not sure how the question in the OP arises. There is no source of the Trinity. It is the same as asking what the source of God is.

God the Father's existence is obviously the source of God the Father's existence, there is no exterior source, HE IS. God the Father's existence is also the source of the Son's existence, and the Spirit's existence. That is what the Nicene Creed means by the Son was "begotten, not made." God the Father eternally furnishes the Son's existence, but the Son is not created, seeing as how the Father always furnished his existence, and perpetually does so.

 

[St_Worm2]

A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).

My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?

Hi Constantine, here's an excerpt from the Athanasian Creed (which also seems to contain the Filioque).

"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 Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

If the "Filioque" involves the HS's "existence", I was certainly unaware of that. I will have to look into this and get back to you.

What I was taught is that the procession of the HS was His choice to act according the the will of the Father, IOW, that He proceeds forth from the Father to do His bidding, NOT that He proceeds forth from the Father in the sense that the Father brought Him into existence Are you sure the latter is the teaching of the RCC (do you have a reference from them regarding that by any chance?)

I have always believed that the wills of both the Son and the HS were, by choice, subordinate to the Father's, but I've never thought of or been taught that they find their very "source" in the Father, as if the two members of the Godhead were created by Him (which seems to be what you are saying).

So we can have it before us, here is the segment of the Athanasian Creed that is most germane to this discussion:

The catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are 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 Spirit 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 Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore 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 must thus think of the Trinity. ~Athanasian Creed (excerpt)
​

Yours and His,
David

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Hi Constantine, here's an excerpt from the Athanasian Creed (which also seems to contain the Filioque).

​

If the "Filioque" involves the HS's "existence", I was certainly unaware of that. I will have to look into this and get back to you.

What I was taught is that the procession of the HS was His choice to act according the the will of the Father, IOW, that He proceeds forth from the Father to do His bidding, NOT the He proceeds forth from the Father in the sense that the Father brought Him into existence Are you sure the latter is the teaching of the RCC (do you have a reference from them regarding that by any chance?)

I have always believed that the wills of both the Son and the HS were, by choice, subordinate to the Father's, but I've never thought of or been taught that they find their "source" in the Father, as if the two members of the Godhead were created by Him (which seems to be what your are saying).

So we can have it before us, here is the segment of the Athanasian Creed that is most germane to this discussion:

The catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are 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 Spirit 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 Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore 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 must thus think of the Trinity. ~Athanasian Creed (excerpt)
​

Yours and His,
David

The Athanasian Creed is a forgery. Saint Athanasius did not author it anymore than Saint Constantine authored the Donation of Constantine.

The Catholic Catechism says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle. That is from the RCC's teaching all the way back from the time of the controversy, and you can see what that means in Latin: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/principium

 

[St_Worm2]

Thanks for the link I'll go check it out.

Question, what is the official position of the EOC concerning the Athanasian Creed?

Thanks again!

--David

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Thanks for the link I'll go check it out.

Question, what is the official position of the EOC concerning the Athanasian Creed?

Thanks again!

--David

We don't have an official position, since it was written in Latin, and no one in the East could read that.

 

[Greg J.]

God the Father's existence is obviously the source of God the Father's existence, there is no exterior source, HE IS. God the Father's existence is also the source of the Son's existence, and the Spirit's existence. That is what the Nicene Creed means by the Son was "begotten, not made." God the Father eternally furnishes the Son's existence, but the Son is not created, seeing as how the Father always furnished his existence, and perpetually does so.

What's your definition of source?

The statement:
God the Father's existence is obviously the source of God the Father's existence
is self-contradictory. God the Father can't be the source of God the Father. "Source" implies some condition or event that required the passage of time (which is always a requirement for change). This concept can not be applied to God when it is believed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed before the beginning of time (as I do, which I can document further if desired).

That statement is also contradictory with the statement He is, which usually is used to indicate God has always existed as He is.

Here is the definition for source from one online dictionary:
a : a generative force : cause
b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : beginning (2) : one that initiates : author; also : prototype, model (3) : one that supplies information

Here's the definition from another online dictionary:
any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin:

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

What's your definition of source?

The statement:
God the Father's existence is obviously the source of God the Father's existence
is self-contradictory. God the Father can't be the source of God the Father. "Source" implies some condition or event that required the passage of time (which is always a requirement for change). This concept can not be applied to God when it is believed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed before the beginning of time (as I do, which I can document further if desired).

That statement is also contradictory with the statement He is, which usually is used to indicate God has always existed as He is.

Here is the definition for source from one online dictionary:
a : a generative force : cause
b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : beginning (2) : one that initiates : author; also : prototype, model (3) : one that supplies information

Here's the definition from another online dictionary:
any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin:

I mean predicate. The Father is obviously his own predicate, and he is the predicate of the Son and the Spirit as they come out of him.

 

[bbbear2002]

Are Adam and Eve two persons, or one person?
According to the Holy Bible, Adam and Eve are one flesh. Eve is Adam's body, Adam is Eve's head.
Are our Heavenly Father and Lord Jesus two Gods, or one God?
According to the Holy Bible, the Father and Lord Jesus are one God. Jesus Christ is the true/express image of the Father, and the Father is Jesus' head.
Jesus Christ is the Wisdom of God, according to the Holy Bible.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Are Adam and Eve two persons, or one person?
According to the Holy Bible, Adam and Eve are one flesh. Eve is Adam's body, Adam is Eve's head.
Are our Heavenly Father and Lord Jesus two Gods, or one God?
According to the Holy Bible, the Father and Lord Jesus are one God. Jesus Christ is the true/express image of the Father, and the Father is Jesus' head.
Jesus Christ is the Wisdom of God, according to the Holy Bible.

Okay...what's your point?

 

[david.d]

A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).

My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?

As a non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, I believe the Trinity, or Godhead as I prefer, is God in His forms. The Father is the Power, the Son is the Figure, and the Spirit is the Spirit, but they are all God. Anytime God has been in a physical form, that was the Son. Anytime God was in a spiritual form, that was the Spirit. They are God and He is.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

As a non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, I believe the Trinity, or Godhead as I prefer, is God in His forms. The Father is the Power, the Son is the Figure, and the Spirit is the Spirit, but they are all God. Anytime God has been in a physical form, that was the Son. Anytime God was in a spiritual form, that was the Spirit. They are God and He is.

Your position is called "modalism".

 

[david.d]

Your position is called "modalism".

No, I believe they have all existed from the beginning. As stated in John and represented in the Old Testament.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

No, I believe they have all existed from the beginning. As stated in John and represented in the Old Testament.

Yeah, so does modalism. Modalism is the belief that they are not distinct existences of God, just different forms or aspects. As in, God is like H2O, and persons are just like ice, liquid water, and gas water.

 

[david.d]

Yeah, so does modalism. Modalism is the belief that they are not distinct existences of God, just different forms or aspects. As in, God is like H2O, and persons are just like ice, liquid water, and gas water.

I just detailed the 3 distinct existences. Modalism believes the Son didn't exist before the virgin birth and the Spirit didn't exist before Pentecost. I do believe they have always existed. Your logic is a bit flawed, as water, ice, and steam are 3 distinct existences of H2O. I don't know how else to explain it, but I do not follow modalism. I believe when God walked in the Garden of Eden, that was Jesus. When David begged God not to take away His holy Spirit, that was the Holy Spirit he was speaking of.

 

[Philip_B]

The position of Augustine and Aquinas was to insist that the ultimate 'alpha point' or origin for the Holy Spirit is the Father, even when it may be said there are places in Scripture where it is reasonable to conclude in the immediate instance that the Holy Spirit has proceeded from the Son.

Any other position here seems to undo the Monarchical Position of the Father in which is seen the essence of the Unity of the Most Holy Trinity.

If I drink wine from the bottle, I may say that the wine has proceeded from the bottle. If I drink wine from the glass, I may say that the wine has proceeded from the glass, though I must also acknowledge that in the first instance the wine proceeded from the bottle.

I don't think most Christians give a hoot;

Sadly I suspect that is true, we stand up on Sunday and say the words in the book. I think that Christians should be concerned to know what they are saying they believe. I know when I went through the creed again, and explored this matter I concluded that the Filioque is an inappropriate insertion (perhaps well intentioned) however it is a really inelegant expression of processional theology, and certainly does not give a proper voice to what Augustine was saying. I now take a breath while the congregation filioques away.