The Source of the Trinity

Colossians 1:16-18
For in him (Christ) all things were created:


things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18 And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Christ was active in creation.

Proverbs 8:27
“I was there when he (Christ) set the heavens in place.”
Wisdom?
“Wisdom was there when he (Christ) set the heavens in place.”

civilwarbuff said:

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......

Click to expand...

The problem with that approach is that true belief in Jesus Chrost requires a belief in the Trinity, that is to say, a positive commitment to the ideal represented by the perfect union of love that exosts between the three coeternal, coequal and consubstantial persons, who comprise one being with one divine will.

Our salvation is attained through faith enabling us to male ourselves a living icon of the Trinity, in marriage, in our family, in Church, and in society as a whole. Recall our Lord's prayer to the Father "that they may all be one, just as You and I are one." And recall his instruction that we be perfect "even as the Father is perfect."

These passages are remarkable and at face value intimidating, given how far from perfection all humans are. However, what they do is point us in the right direction. We must actively believe in the Trinity, and seek to emulate the unity of perfect love that exists therein, and through our living faith, we will be strengthened by divine grace, which in turn will enable us to actually do this (for, owing to the Fall, we are utterly incapable of attaining salvation on our own, as Pelagius vainly taught; the grace conferred by the Holy Spirit through the Sacraments enables our faith in Jesus Christ and our participation in His regeneration of the human race owing to His sacrifice on the Cross and His glorification and exaltation of the Human nature, by condescending as the immortal Word and Only Begotten Son of God to take on our fallen human form and sanctify and restore it, to represent once more a perfect image of the Father, as Adam had been before falling into sin).

The Father is the source of the Trinity, one can say the Father and the Divine Essence are synonymous; the three prosopa of the Trinity did not emerge from the Divine Essense like zygotes emerging from the primordial soup suggested by the fossil record. They always existed, but, the Father has always been the Father; the Son has always been begotten of Him, before all worlds, and the Holy Spirit has always proceeded from Him.

All three however, in a union of perfect love, are coequal, uncreated, coeternal and consubstantial. Jesus Christ is also consubstantial with the human race, which is vital, because this consubstantiality links us to God and makes us partakers of the divine nature through faith, enabling us to ascend above sin through prayer, repentance, participation in the sacraments of the Church, fasting, almsgiving, and the other works which attest to a living, dynamic faith according to the Epistle of St. James (since a faith without works is dead; objections to "works righteousness" miss the point and can lead to a neo-Gnostic indifference to the suffering, causing us to neglect our Christian duty and to fail to follow the example set by our Lord, who did call upon us to "take up your cross and follow Me)."

The Filioque can be misinterpreted as a denial that the Father alone is unoriginate; the Holy Spirit becomes an impersonal force, and the Divine Essence is elevated into another impersonal force from which the persons of the Trinity emerge. The correct understanding is that the uncreated, coeternal and coequal Son and Holy Spirit are begotten and proceed from the Father.

However, I do believe the Filioque can be read in an Orthodox manner; if "and from the Son" is interpreted as referring to the Son sending the Spirit into the world.

The Council of Ephesus did prohibit unauthorized tampering with the creed; strictly speaking the filioque is uncanonical as a result of the Eighth Ecumenical Synod where the Roman Church agreed, after many years, to reject Charlemagne's meddling and follow the instruction of St. Photius to remove the Filioque. Thus, unity between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics was preserved for a few more centuries; a renewed, increasingly politically powerful papacy, having overcome Merovignian domination, then decided to flex its muscles and reinsert the Filioque, which was a contributing factor to the Great Schism that began in 1054 (when a Roman legate in Constantinople dared to place a writ of excommunication on the Holy Table as the priests were preparing to celebrate the Eucharist; deacons were sent in a desperate bid to recall the legate, but without success, and as a result, the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates began to remove the Roman Pope from the Diptychs, and the Schism began. It was cemented in blood with the mass murder of Eastern Christians during the Crusades, especially the Fourth Crusade).

Constantine the Sinner said:

Proverbs 3:19

Click to expand...

.
Proverbs 3:19
The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

'Wisdom' and 'understanding' are attributes of God, just as 'love' is.

God is LOVE. God is WISDOM. God is UNDERSTANDING.

Likewise, it is true that --
The Father is LOVE. The Father is WISDOM. And the Father is UNDERSTANDING.
Jesus Christ is LOVE. Jesus Christ is WISDOM. And Jesus Christ is UNDERSTANDING.
The Holy Spirit is LOVE. The Holy Spirit is WISDOM. And the Holy Spirit is UNDERSTANDING.

We cannot just apply WISDOM and UNDERSTANDING to equal 'Jesus Christ' and reject the full application.

Read Proverbs 3:19 again.

wisdom hath founded the earth

understanding hath established the heavens

Constantine the Sinner said:

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

Click to expand...

This is in fact untrue.

While the Athanasian Creed is not used liturgically, there is an Orthodox recension of it which lacks the Filioque, which can be found in some Greek Horologia, in traditional Russian Psalters, and in A Psalter for Prayer, also known as the Jordanville Psalter, published by Holy Trinity Monastery, the main US seminary of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

The Orthodox version of the Athanasian Creed reads as follows:

The Athanasian Creed

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 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 co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. 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 incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, 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 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 be 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. Likewise also the Holy Spirit is of the Father, 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 other, none is greater, or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is 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.

Concerning Christ

FURTHERMORE, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly 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 Substance of the Father, begotten before the ages, and Man, of the Substance 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 be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ; one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of Substance, 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 Father, God Almighty, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall 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 faithfully, he cannot be saved.

The above is a precise quote from the Jordanville Psalter. Notice the division of the creed into two parts, one Theological or Triadological, and the other, Christological.

Compare: the erroneous form of the creed, as modified by the Roman Church, containing the filioque:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone 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 Substance.
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 co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost
incomprehensible.
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 incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and
one incomprehensible.
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 both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be 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 afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another;
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be
worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly 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 substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance
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 be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, 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 at the right hand of the Father, God 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 faithfully, he cannot be saved.

~

Was this Creed written in Latin? Or is it the handiwork of St. Athanasius? The latter seems doubtful, although the Creed does, in its Orthodox form, align with the theology expressed by St. Athanasius in De Incarnatione. Also, strictly speaking, composing a new Creed would have been uncanonical after the Council of Ephesus in 430 (all recent Christian creeds, like the "Modern Affirmation of Faith" found in Protestant hymnals starting in the mid 20th century are uncanonical; only the Nicene, Athanasian and Apostles Creeds are canonical, the Apostle's Creed itself being part of the ancient Baptismal liturgy of the Latin-speaking church).

In my opinion, the Athanasian creed should be viewed as a second layer of defense of the Holy Faith against those who would seek to distort the meaning of the Nicene Creed.

The Orthodox Church, except in some Western Rite Orthodox communities, has only ever used the Nicene Creed in liturgical worship, this applying to both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox; also the Assyrian Church of the East. However, the Eastern Orthodox church specifically deigned to include the Athanasian Creed as a supplemental text in its prayer books, much like its inclusion of Psalm 151 (which is also not used liturgically). There can be no question as to the correctness of this practice given its ubiquity; almost all traditional Russian Psalters, many Greek Orthodox editions of the Horologion, and the most popular English language Psalter used by the Eastern Orthodox, all include it, in the Orthodox form cited above, sans the filioque.

~

@Constantine the Sinner , you make one other error, and that is in saying "no one in the East could read [Latin]." This is untrue; while it is true that in the Western church, the writings of even the most important Greek and Syriac fathers, like St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Ephrem, and St. Isaac, were frequently neglected, to such a degree that even recently Ive met mainline Protestant clergymen whose knowledge of Patristics is limited to St. Augustine of Hippo, the East always retained access to, and continued to avail itself of, the wisdom of the Latin fathers.

In particular, St. John Cassian's views on Original Sin are definitive in the East; he was a Latin father and a contemporary of St. Augustine, but his work lacks some of the problems the Orthodox have identified with Augustinian theology regarding original sin, for example, the view that sexual intercourse transmits original sin like a veneral disease, and thus, through the Latin writings of St. John Cassian, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox were able to avoid problematic doctrinal accretion like the Immaculate Conception.

Other Latin fathers of great importance and respect in the East include St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine's tutor, who baptized St. Augustine, who had been raised a Manichaen Gnostic, St. Jerome, who translated the Vulgate and was an ardent opponent of Origen and the Origenist faction led by Lucifer of Cagliari, St. Hilary of Poitiers, who said "Scripture is not in the reading but in the interpretation," and St. Vincent of Lerins, whose expression "That which has always and everywhere been believed by everyone is most properly called Catholic" are vital expressions of the nature of Holy Tradition.

Of special importance to the Eastern Orthodox tradition is St. Gregory Diologos, known in the West as St. Gregory the Great, the Pope who reigned around the year 600 and sent St. Augustine of Canterbury to rebuild the defunct British church and convert the Angles (the proto-English invaders from Denmark) to Christianity. St. Gregory the Great is of great importance in the East, not just because of his theological dialogues, or his condemnation of the idea of any bishop claiming universal jurisdiction, but also, because the present form of the Presanctified Liturgy is attributed, I believe correctly, to him (if you read the pre-1955 Roman Catholic Mass of the Presanctified used in the Roman Rite on Good Friday, you will find that in the prayers of the Priest, the structure of the rite and other details, it closely resembles the most common Byzantine Presanctified liturgy; there is another older Presanctified Liturgy of St. James which was recently celebrated for the first time in ... a great many years, by the seminarians at Holy Trinity in Jordanville).

Also, remember, Romanian is a Romance language derived from Vulgar Latin; while parts of the Romanian church used Old Church Slavonic and Cyrillic, generally, the Romanian Church has used a Romanian liturgy, written in Roman letters; the Romanian Orthodox Church is the second largest Eastern Orthodox church, after the Russian Orthodox Church, and speaking a Romance language, the Romanians have benefitted from a particular ease of access to Latin material, although to be frank, most well-educated Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox scholars throughout history could read Latin, and did so, given the importance of some Latin works to the Church.

Paul Yohannan said:

The problem with that approach is that true belief in Jesus Chrost requires a belief in the Trinity, that is to say, a positive commitment to the ideal represented by the perfect union of love that exosts between the three coeternal, coequal and consubstantial persons, who comprise one being with one divine will.

Our salvation is attained through faith enabling us to male ourselves a living icon of the Trinity, in marriage, in our family, in Church, and in society as a whole. Recall our Lord's prayer to the Father "that they may all be one, just as You and I are one." And recall his instruction that we be perfect "even as the Father is perfect."

These passages are remarkable and at face value intimidating, given how far from perfection all humans are. However, what they do is point us in the right direction. We must actively believe in the Trinity, and seek to emulate the unity of perfect love that exists therein, and through our living faith, we will be strengthened by divine grace, which in turn will enable us to actually do this (for, owing to the Fall, we are utterly incapable of attaining salvation on our own, as Pelagius vainly taught; the grace conferred by the Holy Spirit through the Sacraments enables our faith in Jesus Christ and our participation in His regeneration of the human race owing to His sacrifice on the Cross and His glorification and exaltation of the Human nature, by condescending as the immortal Word and Only Begotten Son of God to take on our fallen human form and sanctify and restore it, to represent once more a perfect image of the Father, as Adam had been before falling into sin).

The Father is the source of the Trinity, one can say the Father and the Divine Essence are synonymous; the three prosopa of the Trinity did not emerge from the Divine Essense like zygotes emerging from the primordial soup suggested by the fossil record. They always existed, but, the Father has always been the Father; the Son has always been begotten of Him, before all worlds, and the Holy Spirit has always proceeded from Him.

All three however, in a union of perfect love, are coequal, uncreated, coeternal and consubstantial. Jesus Christ is also consubstantial with the human race, which is vital, because this consubstantiality links us to God and makes us partakers of the divine nature through faith, enabling us to ascend above sin through prayer, repentance, participation in the sacraments of the Church, fasting, almsgiving, and the other works which attest to a living, dynamic faith according to the Epistle of St. James (since a faith without works is dead; objections to "works righteousness" miss the point and can lead to a neo-Gnostic indifference to the suffering, causing us to neglect our Christian duty and to fail to follow the example set by our Lord, who did call upon us to "take up your cross and follow Me)."

The Filioque can be misinterpreted as a denial that the Father alone is unoriginate; the Holy Spirit becomes an impersonal force, and the Divine Essence is elevated into another impersonal force from which the persons of the Trinity emerge. The correct understanding is that the uncreated, coeternal and coequal Son and Holy Spirit are begotten and proceed from the Father.

However, I do believe the Filioque can be read in an Orthodox manner; if "and from the Son" is interpreted as referring to the Son sending the Spirit into the world.

The Council of Ephesus did prohibit unauthorized tampering with the creed; strictly speaking the filioque is uncanonical as a result of the Eighth Ecumenical Synod where the Roman Church agreed, after many years, to reject Charlemagne's meddling and follow the instruction of St. Photius to remove the Filioque. Thus, unity between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics was preserved for a few more centuries; a renewed, increasingly politically powerful papacy, having overcome Merovignian domination, then decided to flex its muscles and reinsert the Filioque, which was a contributing factor to the Great Schism that began in 1054 (when a Roman legate in Constantinople dared to place a writ of excommunication on the Holy Table as the priests were preparing to celebrate the Eucharist; deacons were sent in a desperate bid to recall the legate, but without success, and as a result, the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates began to remove the Roman Pope from the Diptychs, and the Schism began. It was cemented in blood with the mass murder of Eastern Christians during the Crusades, especially the Fourth Crusade).

Click to expand...

I do not see a problem. Understanding is not necessary for faith. One can believe in the Trinity without understanding it. I would submit that all of us actually do just that but some of us deceive ourselves into believing we understand it as well as believe it. I know I cannot understand it as it is beyond human understanding. A human being is simply not capable of truly comprehending the relationship of God within Himself. By human standards, one God with three person makes as much sense as someone rising from the dead. I cannot really explain ,in any reasonable way, how each can possibly be the case but I still can believe both are the case. Salvation contingent upon understanding? Isn't that a contention from Gnosticism? Salvation does not require fully understanding the Trinity any more than it requires fully understanding how Jesus rose from the dead. It is enough to believe it is not necessary to be able to explain in detail.

Constantine the Sinner said:

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?

Click to expand...

OK, do you believe in life, humans or humanoid like life, with the same kind of minds, hearts, wills, and emotions having existed before (us) and will exist after us, in/on say other earth-like, capable of supporting life, like planets? Hopefully you do, cause it is required for what I'm going to say next... His/their plan here, has happened, does happen, and will continue to happen in these other places I'm speaking about... The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit as God, and are key to understanding and showing us what the Father is like, we cannot know the Father without them, Because of this, they are also God with him...

They have have existed, do exist, and will always continue to exist with him before anything, ANYTHING was created, including angels, and any of us, and will continue to be "after" anything or everything is gone or done away with or comes to an end, including angels, and "us" and things are perhaps recreated, including the universe, any other universes their may be, galaxies, stars and star systems, and all earth-like planets that were made for the purpose of having life like us come about...

They are ever present and always there and have no beginning or end, unlike we and angels do/will... We may live in the afterlife for a very long, long time, but not forever, like them... We, and the angels, have a beginning and end... We may even get to be present at a re-creation possibly, but not forever or for all time... Assuming time is even a factor where they are or where we are going, but that is a whole other discussion... In that case, I don't think we can wrap our minds around or conceive of that right now...

I'm curious...? What "scripture" did eastern theology draw their conclusions from on this subject of which you speak, and what "scripture" did western theology draw their conclusions from (on this subject of which you speak)?

It should be enough that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have existed, do exist, and will continue to exist, "before" everything and anything else (including us and angels) was made or created, and will continue to exist "after" everything (including us and angels) are done away with or come to their end...

God Bless!

Constantine the Sinner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Is your stance that the Father is the "I AM"? Is Jehovah God the Father?

Paul Yohannan said:

The problem with that approach is that true belief in Jesus Chrost requires a belief in the Trinity, that is to say, a positive commitment to the ideal represented by the perfect union of love that exosts between the three coeternal, coequal and consubstantial persons, who comprise one being with one divine will.

Click to expand...

You notice I used the word understanding not belief. I think if understanding the Godhead were necessary for salvation it would have been taught openly and directly in the NT not just alluded to; the apostles would have taught it directly and explained it. Explaining the Godhead and understanding it took centuries and much discussion (much of it very heated). And I don't believe we really understand it even to this day....that is not to say we should not try.

I don't see a conflict in the views. We want to have some "right" understanding of God. Early in church history understanding how God could be Father, Son, and Spirit was important. Ultimately the Trinity is a mystery, three persons in one, one person in three. God indivisible, yet three. The Son is not a created being, but God. The Spirit is also God. We understand the concept of father and son, this helps to understand the Trinity, but doesn't explain it. God is Spirit, but we don't understand Spirit, we may sense it and acknowledge it, but this is not understanding. When we think of the H.S. we think of some aspect of God that is distinct from the Father and the Son, but the creeds tell us that the H.S. is of the Father and the Son. If the Father alone is in relation to the Spirit, then there is some inequality with the Son in terms of being God. We believe that the Father and the Son are co-equal and co-eternal, in other words they proceed from each other. The Spirit must proceed from both the Father and the Son.

As best I understand, this reflects the historical Protestant view and is I suspect essentially identical to the RC view.

It occurs to me that saying that the Son and the Father also proceed from the Spirit would help complete the statements showing how little we truly understand the mystery.

grasping the after wind said:

I do not see a problem. Understanding is not necessary for faith. One can believe in the Trinity without understanding it. I would submit that all of us actually do just that but some of us deceive ourselves into believing we understand it as well as believe it. I know I cannot understand it as it is beyond human understanding. A human being is simply not capable of truly comprehending the relationship of God within Himself. By human standards, one God with three person makes as much sense as someone rising from the dead. I cannot really explain ,in any reasonable way, how each can possibly be the case but I still can believe both are the case. Salvation contingent upon understanding? Isn't that a contention from Gnosticism? Salvation does not require fully understanding the Trinity any more than it requires fully understanding how Jesus rose from the dead. It is enough to believe it is not necessary to be able to explain in detail.

Click to expand...

Allow me to clarify: salvation is not contingent upon mental comprehension; in the Orthodox church we commune infants and the mentally disabled, who have traditionally not been communicated in the West; the comprehension of the sacraments is noetic and not psychological.

However, a Pietist approach of indifference to the Trinity and a lack of willingness by those who have the mental capacity to understand the ancient faith of the Church to engage with that faith and apply it positively to their lives is indefensible. "To whom much is given, much will be required,"

Thus, saying that debates about the filioque, and the question of the filioque and the correct understanding thereof, is purely the province of theologians locked away in their ivory tower, is a grave error, and by taking such a view, we cut ourselves off from a living faith based on firm catechesis in the meaning of the Trinity.

It is a lamentable fact that most American Christians who believe in the Trinity, correctly, have still not been catechized or exhorted by their pastors on how to apply the knowledge of the Trinity or why it is relevant. Indeed, in many churches, the only time one will hear a sermon on the subject of the Trinity is on "Trinity Sunday," the first sunday after Pentecost.

I would propose that in Holy Orthodoxy, in the traditions of the Eastern and Oriental churches which have endured continual persecution and which continue to preserve in minute detail the ancient liturgical rites, at a time when the fast-shrinking mainline denominations like the Presbyterian Church USA have openly declared that hymnals should have a fifteen year lifespan, and in which increasingly evangelicals are lured into attending non-denominational churches in which worship is conflated with listening to rock music, every Sunday is Trinity Sunday.

The entire pattern of our liturgy, and also of the ancient liturgy of the Roman Rite which has made somewhat of a comeback following near oblivion in the wake of Vatican II, and to a lesser extent, the pattern of traditional Lutheran and Anglican liturgies, is Trinitarian. The Orthodox liturgy is especially Trinitarian however, with hymns such as the Trisagion providing a chance to contemplate and understand this wondrous life-giving mystery, and with the anaphora structured in an expressly Trinitarian manner (most often, the Anaphora, or Eucharistic Prayer, contains an Epiclesis, in which God the Father is asked to send down His Holy Spirit so that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of His only begotten son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ).

What is more, the rest of the liturgy contains clear "pointers" to explain the Trinitarian concept as it applies to life. "Let us love one another, so that we may confess Father, Son and Holy Ghost," intones the Priest before the Kiss of Peace in the Byzantine Rite.

It is the responsibility of those who have the ability to understand the meaning of the Trinity, not just as an academic doctrine, but as a template for our rebirth in Jesus Christ, to in turn impart this meaning through loving-kindness and compassion to those who are unable to comprehend it, such as infants, young children, and the mentally retarded. Because, while they may at present not be able to grasp the idea of the Trinity, they will be able to understand and receive the love and compassion directed towards them, which lies at the heart of Trinitarian theology.

Remember, the ancient practice of much of our depraved human civilization before the Incarnation of the Word of God was to expose and discard infants with obvious birth defects, and the contemporary evil of aborting children where in the (not infallible) opinion of medical doctors a severe disability exists, a practice ancient Sparta and Nazi Germany would find equally agreeable, entails the rejection of the Trinity. Most of the Trinitarian churches, even the mainline Protestant churches, have not endorsed such views on abortion, but the Unitarian Universalists would have no objection.

You cannot have a living faith in Jesus Christ without accepting through the grace of the Holy Spirit a living faith in the Trinity and thus a concomittant faith in each person as an icon of Jesus Christ, who is a perfect icon of the Father, actualized by the Holy Spirit, who is also a perfect spiritual procession of the Father, and therefore of infinite value.

This is not Gnosticism; Gnosticism rests purely on the idea of salvific knowledge, and the modern equivalent of it exists mainly in some extreme evangelical churches which in their opposition to "works righteousness" redefine Christianity as simply acquiring a knowledge and abstract belief in the salvific power of Jesus Christ, and then living as before, secure in this knowledge that one will "go to Heaven." In this neo-Gnosticism, no actual conversion of manners or evidence of rebirth is required; Luther's dreadful admonition to "sin boldly" becomes the watchword, and the Epistle of St. James and the words of our Lord and indeed of St. Paul are selectively deprecated wherever they appear to require an actual positive commitment of time or energy to respond to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and realize one's faith sacramentally in the Church, and by making a sacrament of one's relationship with others, by actually seeking to follow the example of Jesus Christ.

Following His example does require knowledge of what that example is, which is why even Martin Luther stressed the imperative of catechesis; indeed, in his development of the Shorter Catechism, which is largely although not entirely acceptable to the Orthodox, Martin Luther established himself as the foremost thinker on catechtical technique in the Renaissance and Baroque era, and his approach to writing catechisms and performing catechesis has been universally adopted; even my Syriac Orthodox Church has a Shorter Catechism.

Does this make Martin Luther a Gnostic? Because he clearly felt that the knowledge of scripture obtained through this method of catechesis was vital for salvation.

I would say "no" of course.

It should lastly be noted, because ancient Gnosticism is so often grossly mischaracterized, that Gnosticism stressed salvation through secret knowledge, knowledge that would allow the soul to escape the body; it denied the Trinity, it denied the humanity of Jesus Christ, and it regarded the material universe as evil, a prison for the elite few spirits endowed with this secret knowledge to escape, ascending to the heavenly pleroma, there to exist free from the comstraints of manner and in a sort of matrimonial union with the plethora of divine emanations that characterized the Gnostic religion, such as Christ, Sophia, Jesus (Jesus and Christ were not the same person or aeon in some schools of Gnosticism, such as Valentinism, to wit see St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Volume 1, or alternately the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Book II, for a treatment of the complex Manichean theology to which St. Augustine subscribed before his conversion, and other forms of Gnosticism to crop up after the repose of St. Irenaeus).

The fact that Christianity has to be learned by able, mentally healthy converts to it, and the worldly, secular lifestyle has to be unlearned, is not Gnosticism. Indeed many Christians also have to unlearn the psuedo-Gnostic Christianity I alluded to above; on CF.com many members of this forum, for example, think the end goal of salvation is for their disembodied soul to ascend permanently to Heaven, when in fact Scripture teaches that salvation entails a repose in Abraham's bossom, followed by a bodily resurrection in the flesh, and the dreadful last judgement, and our goal as Christians is to be accounted among the righteous on that day of judgement, not to put off a body as if it were a prison (the Gnostic and neo-Platonic idea), and ascend to a lofty spiritual cloud there to strum a gilt harp saeculae saeculorum.

It is equally vital that we unlearn the Pietist indifference to doctrine which has allowed so much of this collapse to take place. Doctrine matters, and there is such a thing as heresy, and we must not be afraid to speak of heresy and orthodoxy as evil and good, respectively.

But this does not mean the mentally disabled who cannot be catechized are not saved. They in fact have nothing to unlearn; they are saved through the grace imparted to their spirits noetically through the life-giving and sustaining sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist. In the Orthodox, we commune them with 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 in mind, which, unlike those churches using the Revised Common Lectionary, we still actually bother to read on Maundy Thursday; we know that in their innocence, they are not actively sinning, and we hold that while psychologically they may not be able to identify or understand the Eucharist, they are more than capable of discerning the body and blood of our Lord noetically, which is in fact more than can be said about many leading theologians who have openly embraced Gnosticism, Arianism and other ancient errors or rejected a literal interpretation of the Eucharist, or indeed, I would argue, whoever made the indefensible decision to delete 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 from the Revised Common Lectiomary.

Hi Constantine the Sinner (I like Constantine as well, see the hand....),

Reading through your posts, it seems clear that your views are consistent with scripture that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are three entities. This theme runs throughout scripture.

To answer your question, which I think can be paraphrased as "were Jesus and the Holy Spirit always present, because their creation is concomitant with the eternal Father, or alternatively, were Jesus and the Holy Spirit created sometime in the distant past, but not eternal"?

The truth of the matter is that it seems impossible to discern the answer to this question based solely on bible reading (in my opinion), unless an answer has been revealed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

It is obvious that Christ was around prior to the creation of the world, and creation was accomplished through Him.
Genesis 1:26 "Let US make mankind in our image...
Colossians 1:16 "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

BUT there are two seemingly incongruent texts:
Evidence for Eternal Jesus:
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Evidence for a created Christ:
Colossians 1:15 " The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

So, what's the answer? I dunno. Praise God for his mysteries, let's not be divided by them.

PS. I'm a protestant but I really appreciate the interest many Catholics have in Church history, historical questions of theology, and the development of our modern theology and traditions. An appreciation of church history seems to be lacking in the protestant church, but many important lessons can be learned from studying church history.

civilwarbuff said:

You notice I used the word understanding not belief. I think if understanding the Godhead were necessary for salvation it would have been taught openly and directly in the NT not just alluded to; the apostles would have taught it directly and explained it. Explaining the Godhead and understanding it took centuries and much discussion (much of it very heated). And I don't believe we really understand it even to this day....that is not to say we should not try.

Click to expand...

Lets step back a bit...the essence of the Trinitarian doctrine, which is what I was referring to, is unambiguously contained in the Four Gospels, and was taught by all of the Apostles and Evangelists, from the beginning.

It was in fact an Arian lie by the way that the historic position of the Christian Church was that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were not God; the reason why the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople happened and were accepted by almost all of the bishops, with very few exceptions, was because the idea put forward by Arius that Jesus was not God, and later, the idea put forward by Macedonius that the Holy Spirit was not God, was shocking and scandalous. Most of the converts to Arians were people attempting to convert into Christianity from Paganism, as opposed to those who had survived the horrors of the Decian and Diocletian Persecutions; these Babes in Christ, drawn to the Baptismal Font by the example of St. Constantine, were horribly led astray by Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and their successors, who exploited their ignorance.

The filioque was, as you point out, a late development. This is actually why it was rejected by the Orthodox.

I believe it is vital we understand why they objected to it in terms of our salvation, because, if the filioque is taken to mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and Son, the entire nature and character of the Godhead is changed radically.

In particular, the Father is reduced from being the monarchos, the sole unoriginate member of the Godhead, to being a mere colleague of our Lord and a co-emanator of the Spirit, differentiated from our Lord only by virtue of the Sonship of the latter.

If we worship the wrong Godhead, or a misconstrued notion of God, we are effectively albeit unwittingly engaging in idolatry.

The result of this is potentially spiritually disastrous, because it results in a confusion about the meaning, identity, and nature of the Trinity and even causes some people who we have met to reject the sacred doctrine.

Now on your point about what is taught openly and directly in the New Testament: I believe the Trinity is openly and directly taught, after many debates with people over John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19 and so on, it becomes clear this doctrine is explicit and not, as so many people like to say, implicit. The only thing implicit is the logic behind the name Trinity; the actual doctrine is stated unambiguously, and is actually directly inserted into the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. We are taught to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which is, full stop, an explicit declaration of the importance of the Trinity and not a mere allusion, given that the Great Commission is the direct and binding imperative upon the Christian Church and all her members to preach the Gospel unto the nations, and to baptize them, and this baptism is the means by which everyone who believes is united with Christ in His holy Church, the means by which the Christian faith is initiated and actualized, through which we procure for ourselves a seat at the Lord's Supper, becoming worthy to partake of the body and blood of our Lord for the remission of sins, the healing of mind and body and the granting of life everlasting in the New Covenant.

We were not instructed, as one might erroneously deduce from other texts, such as the Longer Ending of Mark, to baptize only in the name of our Lord, but to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

~

Of equal importance, I would thus argue, is what we are not taught about the Godhood. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say the Holy Spirit proceeds mutually, equally and identically from the Father and Son; there is no attestation to the doctrine taught by some Western theologians in the Roman Catholic Church and elsewhere of a co-origination of the Spirit from the Father and Son.

Therefore, I believe your point is corrrect and valid: the filioque, being a later addition, one which is not even implicitly alluded to, but which can only be reconciled with Scripture in the manner I described above, that is, by saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son, and thus the word "proceeds" has a different meaning in the context of which divine person it is associated with, is not neccessary to salvation, and indeed, the innovation posed by the filioque, which was only added to the creed in the 800s AD, illegally in violation of the canons of the Council of Ephesus, actually endangers salvation.

I also now see your point about this being a matter for theologians: you are quite right, for this reason: whereas the filioque should simply and immediately be deleted from the Creed in any church prepared to delete it, and this is increasingly happening, ecumenical reconciliation between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox, in particular, the Eastern Orthodox, requires the problem to actually be resolved, for two reasons: the Eastern Orthodox for a time remained in communion with Rome after the filioque was reintroduced, whereas the Oriental church had broken ties with Rome after Pope Leo's unilateral reversal of the Christology of St. Cyril at Chalcedon, resulting in Pope St. Dioscorus being excommunicated and exiled like a criminal (note that in each case where a schism from the Roman Catholic Church occurred, it usually started with the Roman church excommunicating someone unjustly, for holding onto the ancient faith which some overbearing Pope decided to alter), and thus the Eastern Orthodox must come to terms with the dogmatic implications of their failure to break communion immediately, and also, secondly, and more importantly, there remains within the Roman Church a number of misguided persons who believe that the Filioque represents the Apostolic faith, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, and who will not budge, who would be scandalized by its deletion, but in most cases, their catechesis on the subject is not very strong.

So the answer is for the theologians of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches to simply agree the Filioque refers to the eternal origination of the Holy Spirit from God the Father alone, and regarding our Lord, it refers to His sending us the Spirit. And indeed there is a great deal of theological material, both RC and EO in origin, even in the biased 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which viewed the Orthodox uncharitably as schismatic heretics, which has the effect of enabling such a catechtical explanation.

Indeed, I think that "filioque" could be reasonably translated into English as "Who Proceeds from the Father, and has been sent by the Son."

~

But you are right in saying that for the average layman, this shouldn't matter, because the reality is that the Filioque is a late innovation, dating from the reign of Charlemagne, and increasingly most churches which use the Nicene Creed have either eliminated it or are in the process of doing so.

So to the extent I may have challenged you a bit on your earlier post, please accept my apologies, because I now see your point (and I hope you will see mine). I believe I was talking past you unwittingly.

Jesus descended from Heaven to Earth and has layed the Foundations of His Earth with God from the beginning - The Man in Linen is Jesus Christ our Merciful Saviour - and our Messiah as God our Creator said to His Prophets and Priests - "My Messiah is forthcoming with His Mercy" - Jesus has been with God and The Holy Spirit from the very beginning - our Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One - our Blessed Holy Trinity from the beginning, then Conceived of The Holy Spirit, born of The Virgin Mary in order among many other of God's Holy Mysteries, to fulfil God's Holy Scriptures and suffer His Bitter Passion in order to be given the "opportunity" to receive His Mercy, His Divine Mercy now and eternally - for those of whom "Repent sins and believe in The Good News" turning to Jesus in trust.

Jesus was up in Heaven with God our Creator and The Holy Spirit from the very beginning - God our Heavenly Father states this within His Old Testament and had shown His Prophets, Martyrs and Saints for Centuries with His Holy Words to them and through Holy Visions given to them during their Fasting, Prayers and Sacrifices to God, with many of them seeing Jesus dressed in White Linen - prior to Jesus descending to Earth and being born of our Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God.

Also, Prophets, Priests and Martyrs of God our Heavenly Father's were told by God Himself and shown by God our Creator Himself His Holy Words and Visions - during Moses, Ezra and Solomon's days - Jesus and our Blessed Virgin Mary prior to Mother Mary being Conceived and born.

Song of Solomon 6
Others

6 Where has your beloved gone,
O most beautiful among women?
Where has your beloved turned,
that we may seek him with you?


She
2 My beloved has gone down to his garden
to the beds of spices,
to graze in the gardens
and to gather lilies.
I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine;
he grazes among the lilies.

Solomon and His Bride Delight in Each Other
He
4 You are beautiful as Tirzah, my love,
lovely as Jerusalem,
awesome as an army with banners.
5 Turn away your eyes from me,
for they overwhelm me—
" Your hair is like a flock of goats
leaping down the slopes of Gilead.
6 Your teeth are like a flock of ewes
that have come up from the washing;
all of them bear twins;
not one among them has lost its young.
7 Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate
behind your veil.
8 There are sixty queens and eighty concubines,
and virgins without number.
9 My dove, my perfect one, is the only one,
the only one of her mother,
pure to her who bore her.
The young women saw her and called her blessed;
the queens and concubines also, and they praised her.

10 “Who is this who looks down like the dawn,
beautiful as the moon, bright as the sun,
awesome as an army with banners?”

She
11 I went down to the nut orchard
to look at the blossoms of the valley,
to see whether the vines had budded,
whether the pomegranates were in bloom.
12 Before I was aware, my desire set me
among the chariots of my kinsman, a prince.

Others
13 Return, return, O Shulammite,
return, return, that we may look upon you.

He
Why should you look upon the Shulammite,
as upon a dance before two armies?

Who is She that cometh forth as the morning rising,
Fair as The Moon, Bright as the Sun,
terrible as an army set in battle array,
O Mary conceived without sin
pray for us who have recourse to Thee,
Amen.

jargew said:

Hi Constantine the Sinner (I like Constantine as well, see the hand....),

Reading through your posts, it seems clear that your views are consistent with scripture that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are three entities. This theme runs throughout scripture.

To answer your question, which I think can be paraphrased as "were Jesus and the Holy Spirit always present, because their creation is concomitant with the eternal Father, or alternatively, were Jesus and the Holy Spirit created sometime in the distant past, but not eternal"?

The truth of the matter is that it seems impossible to discern the answer to this question based solely on bible reading (in my opinion), unless an answer has been revealed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

It is obvious that Christ was around prior to the creation of the world, and creation was accomplished through Him.
Genesis 1:26 "Let US make mankind in our image...
Colossians 1:16 "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

BUT there are two seemingly incongruent texts:
Evidence for Eternal Jesus:
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Evidence for a created Christ:
Colossians 1:15 " The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

So, what's the answer? I dunno. Praise God for his mysteries, let's not be divided by them.

PS. I'm a protestant but I really appreciate the interest many Catholics have in Church history, historical questions of theology, and the development of our modern theology and traditions. An appreciation of church history seems to be lacking in the protestant church, but many important lessons can be learned from studying church history.

Click to expand...

Two things:

1. @Constantine the Sinner is not a Roman Catholic, or in communion with the Roman Catholic Church; indeed, this entire thread is actually largely built upon an Orthodox critique of Roman Catholic theology. However, the Orthodox churches do believe that we are exclusively the Catholic church, and the Eastern Orthodox of which @Constantine the Sinner is a member also have a good claim on being Roman, given that the five ancient archbishophrics of the eastern Mediterranean that people like to call the Greek Orthodox Church were really the church of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was very close to the Latin speaking Church of Rome until Rome was conquered by Charlemagne and subjected to political influences that divided the two churches.

2. Jesus Christ is the uncreated Word of God in His Divinity, who for our sakes condescended to assume our created human nature, saving and glorifying us by uniting us personally and hypostatically with the Godhead. This is why we call His birth the Incarnation, and why He is named Emanu-El, meaning God with us. He is not a creature, but He assumed a created nature, putting on our humanity without change, confusion, admixture or division. Indeed, in the writings of the church Fathers, the glory of the Incarnation is often expressed by referring to our Lord as "the God-man Jesus" because of His theandric nature (or his human and divine natures in hypostatic union, if you prefer Chalcedonian terminology).

It is entirely possible to discern this truth from the Scriptural text, and indeed, impossible to believe in a purely created Christ; if you read John 1:2-17, it becomes clear that the Word of God created all things, and ergo is not a creature, but became incarnate, putting on our created nature. As such, He is the firstborn of all creation, having put on created humanity while Himself being uncreated, begotten and not made.

This is the only logical and reasonable answer, and is the belief of the Christian church, as expressed in the Nicene Creed (the Statement of Faith for this site).

St. Athanasius was the fourth century bishop who was horribly persecuted for defending this doctrine against the evil heretic Arius and the vicious sons of Emperor St. Constantine who lacked the saintliness of their Father and instead embraced Arianism, having been tutored by the infamous Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. St. Athanasius also is the originator of our New Testament canon; he was the first bishop to list the twenty seven books that were to be universally accepted as canonical, resolving what had been a disputed question for several decades (many earlier attempts at a canon either omitted Revelations, Hebrews, Jude, 2 John, 3 John, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and other books, and/or included dubious psuedepigraphical works like 1 Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermas, or included works that were doctrinally correct but not of apostolic origin, like 1 Clement, or included books of church order like the Didascalia that St. Athanasius reckoned should remain outside of the defined canon of sacred scripture, being subject to revision according to pastoral need, and in some respects already obsolete or only locally applicable).

Every time you read the New Testament, you should think of St. Athanasius, because he edited it; the Table of Contents is his crowning accomplishment.

And he explained the mystery of the Incarnation thus:

"God became man so that we might become god" "becoming sons of God through adoption" "by grace what Christ is by nature"

This is the apostolic faith, as a reading of the works of earlier Patristic figures such as St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen will confirm.

It also allows us to understand, without resorting to Mormon polytheism, difficult passages like "know ye not that ye are gods?", "be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect," et cetera.

I suggest you read the book St. Athanasius wrote on the subject, entitled On the Incarnation. It is readily available for free from many websites right across the Internet, translated into English. At least one has a nice introduction by CS Lewis.

Constantine the Sinner said:

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?

Click to expand...

My sentiment is that either description of God is acceptable. Saying, "with the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified" is acceptable in any case.

One of the greatest attributes of scripture, is that it leaves some room for freedom of thought -because words can only reveal so much. To be "with the father and the son", doesn't really take anything from those who see the Father as more dominant.

...Can we not celebrate any freedom of interpretation?

As far as I remember, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox claim there's no salvation outside of their Church. If it's the reason, I can hardly see God condemning somebody to damnation because he thought that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son

Toneri Otsutsuki said:

As far as I remember, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox claim there's no salvation outside of their Church. If it's the reason, I can hardly see God condemning somebody to damnation because he thought that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son

Click to expand...

There needs to be some freedom of interpretation, obviously.

civilwarbuff said:

You notice I used the word understanding not belief. I think if understanding the Godhead were necessary for salvation it would have been taught openly and directly in the NT not just alluded to; the apostles would have taught it directly and explained it. Explaining the Godhead and understanding it took centuries and much discussion (much of it very heated). And I don't believe we really understand it even to this day....that is not to say we should not try.

Click to expand...

We can only understand in action ,as it effects our lives , how we live . To the early people of the O.T., it was first and foremost neccessary to Know ,hear and follow the Father the Creator of the Law (laws) .Only when they had experience in living Under the law ,being molded by the law ,understanding the connection between the God who loved them and their need to live according to the rules inherent in His creation . God in Jesus came later to give us a chance to Recreate ourselves ,to be renewed even when we had sinned grievously ,a chance to begin again . The Holy Spirit was to take us to the next state or stage of 'evolution' ,by inspiring us ,guiding us and protecting us as He unfolded the marvels of God's created world ,and opened
the door to our return to Paradise and completness as God originally made us

I go with Constantines well explained version from the E.O . "The Father is the sole source of the Trinity .The will is furnished by the Father ,and the existences of the Son and the, H.Spirit are furnished by the Father .