The Source of the Trinity

[Constantine the Sinner]

Fair enough. I was being general with names, but I will endeavor to use quotes from recognized fathers. Keep in mind, that there are many Scriptures that point to the Father alone as God, and you'll be hard pressed to find any that refer to Jesus as God apart from the Father. Paul and Peter in virtually every greeting refer to God the Father, and Jesus as Son and Lord, but rarely referred to the Son as God. This doesn't mean He isn't God, but that they made a distinction.

Paul:
1 Corinthians 8:6 - yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Col 3:10 – Jesus is the image, created by God (see 2 Cor 4:4)

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

Clement of Rome: "[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty...and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son..."
"Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son."


Doesn't say God is alone before creation, but is clear that he just made a distinction between unbegotten vs the begotten, a form of subordinationism.

Ignatius: "But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin."

Ignatius: He [Jesus] made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross

Justin: "For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God..."

All of the following from Irenaeus: "...assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father;"

"How then was the Son produced by the Father? "we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable...and while they (Gnostics) style Him unspeakable and unnameable, they nevertheless set forth the production and formation of His first generation, as if they themselves had assisted at His birth,"

"But that He (Son) had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him."

“as the first-born and eldest offspring of the thought of the Father, the Word, fulfilling all things, and Himself guiding and ruling upon earth.”

"but as truth declares concerning the Word who is ever existent within (endiatheton) the heart of God. For before anything was made He had Him to His Counselor, as being His own mind and understanding. But when He willed to make what He had counseled, He begat this Word into outwardness (prophorikon), as first-begotten of all creation: not being Himself emptied of the Word, but having begotten the Word, and for ever conversing with His Word."

These quotes can be verified on several sites. They are very hard to ignore, unless they are refused on the basis of disagreeing with theology based on later teachings.

None of these quotes is objectionable, they are fully Orthodox. The Orthodox position is that the Son is eternally, always begotten of the Father, his existence is contingent upon the Father's existence and produced by the Father's existence, but his existence always was and always is.

The only issue is when you start saying things like the Father was alone. The Father was never alone, since he always begot the Son.

 

[younglite]

The thing is, "Church Father" is a specific Orthodox term, it doesn't mean "any early Christian writer." It means an Orthodox saint who was who instrumental in defending doctrine. Tertullian and Origen are neither considered saints, nor defenders of doctrine (since they were both heretics). They are certainly, absolutely useful to study, but they are also completely ruled out as doctrinal authorities.

Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from. I happen to believe many of the later church rulers/fathers anathematized the early writers for the very reason I am suggesting to you - that the theme of subordinationism didn't set well with them, and they needed to justify their stance.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from. I happen to believe many of the later church rulers/fathers anathematized the early writers for the very reason I am suggesting to you - that the theme of subordinationism didn't set well with them, and they needed to justify their stance.

That's a nice theory, but there's not really any substance to it. For instance, according to Origen, the world always existed, souls always existed, but the physical universe is the "fall universe", and the idea to transcend the physical, not to partake of a physical resurrection (he got all this from pagan philosophy). He wasn't officially anathematized until hundreds of years later, though--do you think this is because doctrines like the physical resurrection, and creation not always existing, "evolved" later? No, it had nothing to do with that, it just had to with it being a pain to get the whole Church together to proclaim things, and also they actually needed a significant support for the motion to anathematize to get it rolling.

 

[younglite]

The Orthodox position is that the Son is eternally, always begotten of the Father, his existence is contingent upon the Father's existence and produced by the Father's existence, but his existence always was and always is.

If by the Son's existence, you mean within the Father first as His Word and Wisdom and then later birthed outwardly, I agree. He is eternal. If you believe that the Son has always existed outside of the Father, then you believe in more than one god. You can't have a begotten Son who was never really begotten, or else you have two Unbegottens.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

If by the Son's existence, you mean within the Father first as His Word and Wisdom and then later birthed outwardly, I agree. He is eternal. If you believe that the Son has always existed outside of the Father, then you believe in more than one god. You can't have a begotten Son who was never really begotten, or else you have two Unbegottens.

God isn't physical, what do you mean by "inside" and "outside"?

 

[younglite]

For instance, according to Origen, the world always existed, souls always existed, but the physical universe is the "fall universe", and the idea to transcend the physical, not to partake of a physical resurrection (he got all this from pagan philosophy).

Origen was definitely out there at times - especially if there wasn't already a clear teaching on the issue at hand. But Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers relied heavily on his doctrine of the Trinity. I think we can use our rationale in textual criticism to determine whether others are in accord with their writings, versus tossing out everything a writer said because all of what they wrote wasn't orthodox.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Origen was definitely out there at times - especially i there wasn't already a clear teaching on the issue at hand. But Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers relied heavily on his doctrine of the Trinity. I think we can use our rationale in textual criticism to determine whether others are in accord with their writings, versus tossing out everything a writer said because all of what they wrote wasn't orthodox.

You can rest assured plenty of textual analysis (which is what you really mean, not textual criticism, which is the study of comparing various versions of a text) was used to investigate their teachings in the proceedings held to anathematize them.

 

[younglite]

God isn't physical, what do you mean by "inside" and "outside"?

Even the incorporeal has a form of its own, albeit we are but an image and likeness of it.

My apologies. I didn't mean to detract from your original intent, which was to discuss the source(s) of the Spirit.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Even the incorporeal has a form of its own, albeit we are but an image and likeness of it.

My apologies. I didn't mean to detract from your original intent, which was to discuss the source(s) of the Spirit.

Man is not made in the form of God (which is used to mean his essence), Man is made in the likeness and image of God (likeness/image vs. form/idol are four very distinct terms in both Hebrew and Greek). To make something which purports to have God's form, is the definition of idolatry.

The Son's being begotten of the Father, as a term, is used indicate something eternal and ongoing (like the Spirit's proceeding). Not, "prior to begotten" and "post begotten". This seems to be your misunderstanding, you see the begetting of the Son as event that is unaccomplished, then accomplished. It's not an event like that, it is an ongoing relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son is continuously begotten.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

"Icon", by the way, just comes from the Greek term for "image" (eikon).

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Also, the phrase "graven image" is actually used to translate a Hebrew word which is quite distinct from the Hebrew word for "image" (for instance, as used in man being the image of God). The Hebrew word here translated as "graven image" means something made in the form of something else (as opposed to "image", which is something made in the likeness of something else). God created man as an image and likeness of him, not as an idol and form of him.

 

[younglite]

Man is not made in the form of God (which is used to mean his essence), Man is made in the likeness and image of God (likeness/image vs. form/idol are four very distinct terms in both Hebrew and Greek). To make something which purports to have God's form, is the definition of idolatry.

I never said any of these things, so you misunderstood my point. My only point was that the incorporeal has a form, even if it is the essence of God and invisible. Of course, man has no form of God. I did use the word image and likeness, not form in reference to man's relationship to God's form.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The thing is, "Church Father" is a specific Orthodox term, it doesn't mean "any early Christian writer." It means an Orthodox saint who was who instrumental in defending doctrine. Tertullian and Origen are neither considered saints, nor defenders of doctrine (since they were both heretics). They are certainly, absolutely useful to study, but they are also completely ruled out as doctrinal authorities.

I am going go have to call you out on this and demand a citation in support of your argument, because:

Fr. John Behr of St. Vladimir's Seminary, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, and othere, have referred to Origen and Tertullian as Fathers. And they were by the way both defenders of doctrine; see Tertullian's heresiological polemics against the Gnostics, and see Adversus Praxeas, in which he coined the term "Trinitas.". Only later did he apostasize; his writings before converting to Montanism arre not regarded as heretical.

As far as Origen is concerned, he defended the faith against against Celsus and other Gnostic figures and was regarded as a heretic by St. Epiphanius of Salamis (who may have been himself an Iconoclast) and St. Jerome mainly for the implications of some speculations he wrote, which he by and large did not pronounce as official dogma. Of these, only the doctrine of transmigration allegedly taught by him would be utterly heretical, if he taught it, which is doubtful; regarding apokatastasis, St. Gregory of Nyassa and St. Isaac the Syrian also expressed a belief in this. Indeed, St. Isaac was actually a member of the Assyrian Church of the East and a Nestorian monk, yet he was recognized as a saint by the still-undivided Greek-Latin EO/RC church and the Oriental Orthodox (who are particularly opposed to Nestorians and to the Assyrian Church). This event was centuries after the Council of Chalcedon.

Origen died in the peace of the church and was not declared a heretic until the Three Chapters of Justinian, and there is some debate as to whether or not these anathemas against Origen, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were actually a part of the Fifth Ecumenical Council or merely a unilateral act of St. Justinian; there are many Orthodox theologians who have expressed a view that certain anthemas against, for example, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Oriental saints like Severus, should be lifted; in the case of Severus this is quite likely as part of the process of OO-EO reconciliation.

Tertullian on the other hand died out of communion with the Church, but what he wrote before becoming a Montanist has always been accepted as part of the Patristic corpus.

Also, your definition of Father seems to me incorrect; that definition instead I believe refers to those labelled "Pillars of Orthodoxy" or "Defenders of the Faith" like St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria (just as those who evangelize countries like Sts. Gregory the Illuminator and St. Nino are "Equal to the Apostles," along with certain women of the New Testament like St. Mary Magdalene). I believe you are proceeding from the Roman definition of a Church Father, which is basically that, with the additional caveat that the person predate St. John Damascene, who is reckoned "Last of the Fathers."

Several articles exist refuting the Roman doctrine of the Patristic age being of finite duration by noted Orthodox writers, who identify figures such as St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, who do not meet your unsourced criterion of Patrology, as Church Fathers.

So in general, I am more likely to accept as normative of Orthodoxy the writings and lectures of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Fr. John Behr, vs. some random person on the Net.

Just out of curiosity, which jurisdiction are you a member of, and how long have you been in the Church?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

That's a nice theory, but there's not really any substance to it. For instance, according to Origen, the world always existed, souls always existed, but the physical universe is the "fall universe", and the idea to transcend the physical, not to partake of a physical resurrection (he got all this from pagan philosophy). He wasn't officially anathematized until hundreds of years later, though--do you think this is because doctrines like the physical resurrection, and creation not always existing, "evolved" later? No, it had nothing to do with that, it just had to with it being a pain to get the whole Church together to proclaim things, and also they actually needed a significant support for the motion to anathematize to get it rolling.

The bolded part is Gnosticism, and Origen did not teach that. Where are you getting this misinformation?

Also, while I too reject the idea of doctrinal development as a Roman Catholic error, it is a fact that when Arius spewed his venomous error on the Church, he was anathematized immediately by his bishop, and then by an ecumenical council.

In the case of Origen, there was not a consensus on anathematizing him until the sixth century; in the fourth century, his opponents, such as St. Epiphanius and St. Jerome, were in the minority, the Cappadocian Fathers, who were rather more important, compiled an anthology of his writings, which is still extant, and one of them, St. Gregory of Nyassa, publically agreed with Origen on apokatastasis.

Furthermore, some saints were on record as defending Origen, such as St. Lucifer of Cagliari, who is to this day venerated on the island of Sardinia as that land's principle spiritual father and instructor. He is not universallly venerated in the Roman church, but he is locally venerated and has been since before the Great Schism. One could probably find Byzantine icon of him.

 

[younglite]

The Son's being begotten of the Father, as a term, is used indicate something eternal and ongoing (like the Spirit's proceeding). Not, "prior to begotten" and "post begotten". This seems to be your misunderstanding, you see the begetting of the Son as event that is unaccomplished, then accomplished. It's not an event like that, it is an ongoing relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son is continuously begotten.

We will agree to disagree. I believe there are numerous Scriptures referring to Christ being begotten at a specific point. If you believe the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 is also the Word, then you already have the word 'qanas' in place to help you understand. Proverbs 8:22 means the Son was “possessed” (acquired) at the beginning of all God did. The Father's first act was to beget and “have” His Son with Himself, even though the Son had been in His bosom within for all eternity.

Typically qanas (Hebrew) means you now have it in hand because of a purchase. Eve says she has “gotten” (qanas) a son from God (Genesis 4:1). In this context, you can understand Proverbs to mean God now has, or “possesses” Wisdom. I see this as definitive proof that the Son had a beginning. Psalm 2:7 - The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you."

This teaching is consistent with Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:6 and Revelation 3:14 – Jesus is the beginning of creation. Twisting Scripture to say "firstborn" really means preeminence does not reflect the spirit of the passage nor acknowledge the above Scriptures that teach He was begotten at a point in time.

I am fine if you don't agree, but please don't assume I misunderstand what seems to be clear teaching. I don't even misunderstand your stance on it. I just think believing in 'eternally begotten' to a point of no real birth taking place is twisting the meaning of a word synonymous with generated, birthed, born, begat, etc. These things happen at some point as Psalm 2:7 states. To believe the Son always was how He is today is to believe in two gods.

The only reason I believe in 'eternally begotten' is because outside of time it can be said to be eternal. This doesn't mean it didn't happen at a point in time within eternity past. This is another teaching from the early writers.

 

[Job8]

This thread is about who causes the Holy Spirit to exist. Eternally.

The Holy Spirit is SELF-EXISTENT being God the Holy Spirit.

 

[younglite]

While you may not consider these writers credible, I agree with their sentiments...

Origen:
Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name (modalism definitely does this, and some modern theology comes close to this in that the Son has very little distinction from the Father in any way), or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. (what Arius did, and many cults teach today).

Novatian:
Had He been invisible, as compared with the Invisible, and declared equal, He would have shown forth two Invisibles, and thus also He would have proved them to be two Gods. If incomprehensible, if also whatever other attributes belong to the Father, reasonably we say, He would have given rise to the allegation of two Gods, as these people feign. But now, whatever He is, He is not of Himself, because He is not unborn; but He is of the Father, because He is begotten, whether as being the Word, whether as being the Power, or as being the Wisdom, or as being the Light, or as being the Son; and whatever of these He is, in that He is not from any other source, as we have already said before, than from the Father, owing His origin to His Father.

You seem to agree that the Son (I believe the Spirit, as well) owes His existence to the Father, so I believe you are on solid footing there. We just part ways in the understanding of 'eternally begotten.' As was said in the first page of this thread, most people won't give a hoot. It certainly isn't salvific teaching, so we are free to read and understand as best as we can. Blessings to you.

 

[Graham Dull]

At what point does (or did) this discussion become one of human philosophy?

There are things revealed to us by God. There is also much speculation about 'things which God hasn't revealed' to mankind.

The debate on this site now has 150 responses. The actual debate has been going for centuries.

Are we actually asking a crucial question which God intends, or a philosophical question to stimulate human reasoning, all the while causing division in the church, and playing into the hands of Satan.

I recognize the Divinity of the Father, the Divinity of Christ, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Do I need to speculate further?

 

[Ireneh]

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?

 

[Received]

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?

Most sentiments will be practically the same, as it's incredibly hard regardless of your denomination to describe the functions of the trinity, especially in a practical sense. The conclusion I've come to is that the Father is the speaker, Christ is the word that's spoken, and the Holy Spirit is the energy of the speaking. I tend to sway toward the Eastern Orthodox opinion, seeing how the Father seems to be superior in this regard.