Trinity

[BobRyan]

"of one essence with the Father"

That's homoousios. Homo = same, ousia = being/essence

"ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί" in the original Greek of the Creed. "Of the same Being as the Father" "consubstantial with the Father" "of the same essence with the Father" are all translations of this phrase.

-CryptoLutheran

two beings can be of the same substance (essence) ontologically and yet still be two persons.

And we can also have this --

John 17 - we are to be one - as they are one.

11 I am no longer going to be in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, so that they may be one just as We are.

20 “I am not asking on behalf of these alone, but also for those who believe in Me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 The glory which You have given Me I also have given to them, so that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and You loved them, just as You loved Me.

 

[BobRyan]

"ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί" in the original Greek of the Creed. "Of the same Being as the Father"

Same IN essence, same IN being -- speaks of two beings - being the same in essence.

The Holy Spirit is the "same in essence" with the Father and the Son. Does not require Him to be "the same being" for the statement to hold true. It requires that He is of the same substance, same essence as the Father and Son. Some believe they are only one "being" others believe they are in fact "three persons".

When Jesus said "not my will but Thy will be done" - it is not a case of praying to Himself or asking Himself not to pay attention to His will

 

[ViaCrucis]

two beings can be of the same substance (essence) ontologically and yet still be two persons.

And we can also have this --

The words being and essence are identical in meaning. One is of Anglo-Saxon origin and the other Latin. Being is a noun derived from the present-tense verb of "to be", "being". Essence comes from the Latin essentia, from the verb esse, "to be" "is".

There is only one Being, one Essence. The Father is, in His Being, God; the Son is God because He receives His Being from the Father, He is of the Father's own Being, the Father's own Essence. The Son is therefore God of God, begotten not made.

This isn't a debate Bob. This is what the doctrine of the Trinity has always been.

Same IN essence, same IN being -- speaks of two beings - being the same in essence.

No Bob, it speaks of the two Persons of the Father and the Son as being the same Being. There is only one Divine Being. The Father is that one Divine Being, and the Son likewise is God with the Father, and the Spirit also is one God with the Father and the Son. Holy Trinity. Three Persons, one Being.

The Holy Spirit is the "same in essence" with the Father and the Son. Does not require Him to be "the same being" for the statement to hold true. Some believe they are only one "being" others believe they are in fact "three persons".

Christians believe that there is one Ousia--Being, Essence; and three Hypostases or Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

To say that there are three ousion--three beings--is tritheism, Bob.

When Jesus said "not my will but Thy will be done" - it is not a case of praying to Himself or asking Himself not to pay attention to His will

God the Son speaking to God the Father. Jesus is the same WHAT that the Father is, God. That means Jesus is the same Being as His Father: Jesus is God. Jesus is not another god from the Father, there is only one God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

two beings can be of the same substance (essence) ontologically and yet still be two persons.

And we can also have this --

They are one being, God.

 

[Clare73]

Same IN essence, same IN being -- speaks of two beings - being the same in essence.

Nope. . .same in being speaks of one being.

The Holy Spirit is the "same in essence" with the Father and the Son. Does not require Him to be "the same being" for the statement to hold true. It requires that He is of the same substance, same essence as the Father and Son. Some believe they are only one "being" others believe they are in fact "three persons".
When Jesus said "not my will but Thy will be done" - it is not a case of praying to Himself or asking Himself not to pay attention to His will

It is a case of praying to another person who is the same Being.

That is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[jacks]

Let me first say I don't totally understand the Trinity, however I found the explanation below by C.S. Lewis to go a long way in clarifying it. The paragraphs below are directly from "Mere Christianity". It equates the idea of the Trinity to a 3 dimensional object.

You know that in space you can move in three ways—to left or right, backwards or forwards, up or
down. Every direction is either one of these three or a compromise between them. They are called the
three Dimensions. Now notice this. If you are using only one dimension, you could draw only a
straight line. If you are using two, you could draw a figure: say, a square. And a square is made up of
four straight lines. Now a step further. If you have three dimensions, you can then build what we call a
solid body, say, a cube—a thing like a dice or a lump of sugar. And a cube is made up of six squares.
Do you see the point? A world of one dimension would be a straight line. In a two-dimensional world,
you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three-dimensional world, you still get
figures but many figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance to more real and more
complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things you found on the simpler levels: you still
have them, but combined in new ways—in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler
levels.
Now the Christian account of God involves just the same principle. The human level is a simple and
rather empty level. On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate
beings—just as, in two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure, and any two
squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level you still find personalities; but up there you find
them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine.
In God's dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being,
just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being
like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never
properly imagine a cube. But we can get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do, we are then, for
the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something superpersonal—something more than a person. It is something we could never have guessed, and yet, once
we have been told, one almost feels one ought to have been able to guess it because it fits in so well
with all the things we know already.

 

[Jonaitis]

How can the Trinity be explained? Are there some verses in the Bible that prove it? Don't get me wrong, I believe that they are one, but where can I find this in the Bible?

Well, the argument is that we are presented with three distinct members associated with the Godhead, particularly in the New Testament. After Jesus was baptized, who descended as a dove upon Him, and who spoke from heaven? Or, who is this Father that Jesus spoke of being sent by, and who is the Spirit to come after Him following His ascension? These are some examples. If "God is one," there needs to be an explanation.

 

[BobRyan]

Nope. . .same in being speaks of one being.

It is a case of praying to another person who is the same Being.

That is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

The trinity doctrine is One God in three persons - we pray to the first person of the Godhead and it is all "one God".

That "They may be ONE as WE are ONE" John 17:11,21.

Well, the argument is that we are presented with three distinct members associated with the Godhead, particularly in the New Testament. After Jesus was baptized, who descended as a dove upon Him, and who spoke from heaven? Or, who is this Father that Jesus spoke of being sent by, and who is the Spirit to come after Him following His ascension? These are some examples. If "God is one," there needs to be an explanation.

And we find part of that statement in Jesus' prayer - in John 17:11,21

They are one being, God.

May I quote "you"?

 

[Clare73]

The trinity doctrine is One God in three persons - we pray to the first person of the Godhead and it is all "one God".
That "They may be ONE as WE are ONE" John 17:11,21.
And we find part of that statement in Jesus' prayer - in John 17:11,21

They are one being, God.

May I quote "you"?

Regarding what?
Historical church doctrine?

 

[concretecamper]

How can the Trinity be explained? Are there some verses in the Bible that prove it? Don't get me wrong, I believe that they are one, but where can I find this in the Bible?

scripture alone does not come close to explaining the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Church and accepted by the vast majority of protestants.

 

[Clare73]

scripture alone does not come close to explaining the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Church and accepted by the vast majority of protestants.

Scripture is the only authority for three persons in one God.

A. The NT presents three separate divine agents, Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the work of salvation:
1) Father, Son and Holy Spirit
a) at its beginning (Luke 1:35),
b) at the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry (Matthew 3:16-17) and
c) in the work of atonement (Hebrews 9:14);

2) the Holy Spirit completing the work of the Father through the Son; i.e., the work of salvation (Acts 2:38-39, Romans 8:26; 1 Corinthians 12:4-13 (vv.4-6); Ephesians 1:3-14 (v.14), Ephesians 2:13-22 (v.18); 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2);

3) the only way to enter the kingdom of the Father is through faith in the Son and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-15, vv. 5, 14-15).

B. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are bracketed together as the triune name of God:
1) Matthew 28:19 - this is the name (singular--not names, plural) of the God with whom we enter into relationship;

2) 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 - Paul uses all three interchangeably;

3) 2 Corinthians 13:14; Revelation 1:4-5 - they are linked in prayer for and in pronouncement of divine blessing.

C. The NT shows the following set of relationships among the three:
1) The Son and Holy Spirit proceeding from within the Father (John 8:42, John 15:26);

2) THe Son is subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name (John 5:23, 36, 43);

3) The Spirit is subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26);

4) The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, John 16:17, 14:26).

 

[The Liturgist]

Scripture is the only authority for three persons in one God.

That sounds plausible in theory, and I used to believe it, until I found out that Arius was able to articulate his doctrine using exactly the same Gospels and approximately the same New Testament canon we use (with at most minor variations in terms of the presence or absence of books not extremely relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity; see the 22 book New Testament canon of the original Peshitta, before the Syriac Orthodox added the missing books from the 27 book Athansian Canon we use, and also the canon proposed by Eusebius of Caesarea).

Sola Scriptura does not require setting aside Tradition, contrary to popular belief, which is why Martin Luther retained the doctrine of the Real Presence, the Mass, the Crucifix, iconography, the Hail Mary prayer, the standard hymns of the Mass and of Matins and Vespers, and so on, even translating them into German as well as publishing a revised Latin edition. Calvin and Luther both retained the doctrine of the Trinity and the theological principles of the first four ecumenical councils (in the case of Martin Luther, he comes close to using all seven councils recognized by the Eastern Orthodox). Likewise Cranmer retained these doctrines, but Anglicanism is based on Scripture, Tradition and Reason. For that matter, Zwingli and the Anabaptists retained them, but the Soccinians, the ancestors of the Unitarian Churches of Transylvania and Hungary, did not, instead proceeding on a more nuda scriptura basis.

It is ultimately the first two Ecumenical Councils and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed that establish the doctrine of the Trinity. Scripture is of course compatible with it, but the fact remains, both the Arians and the Christians were quoting from the same Bible. Indeed Eusebius of Caesarea was an Arian sympathizer, and his Diocese (which was extremely prestigious due to its location near Jerusalem before the rebuilding of that city was complete) received an order of fifty Bibles for Rome, while Alexandria around the same time received an order of fifty Bibles for the new capital in Constantinople. It seems probable that at least two of the three Alexandrian text type Bibles were connected to these orders (probably the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

 

[concretecamper]

Scripture is the only authority for three persons in one God.

If scripture was so clear you wouldn't have had Arianism, Nestorianism, etc and even today people refusing to believe scripture and the Church Councils. As I said, scripture isn't adequate to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity.

All you've shown in your posts is that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You do realize there is much more to the Trinity.

 

[Clare73]

That sounds plausible in theory, and I used to believe it, until I found out that Arius was able to articulate his doctrine using exactly the same Gospels and approximately the same New Testament canon we use

I would have to examine Arius on that myself to be persuaded he actually used the Gospels to articulate his doctrine in contradiction of the NT testimony thereof.

(with at most minor variations in terms of the presence or absence of books not extremely relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity; see the 22 book New Testament canon of the original Peshitta, before the Syriac Orthodox added the missing books from the 27 book Athansian Canon we use, and also the canon proposed by Eusebius of Caesarea).
Sola Scriptura does not require setting aside Tradition, contrary to popular belief,

Agreed. . .Sola Scriptura requires only that tradition be in agreement with Scripture.

which is why Martin Luther retained the doctrine of the Real Presence, the Mass, the Crucifix, iconography, the Hail Mary prayer, the standard hymns of the Mass and of Matins and Vespers, and so on, even translating them into German as well as publishing a revised Latin edition. Calvin and Luther both retained the doctrine of the Trinity and the theological principles of the first four ecumenical councils (in the case of Martin Luther, he comes close to using all seven councils recognized by the Eastern Orthodox). Likewise Cranmer retained these doctrines, but Anglicanism is based on Scripture, Tradition and Reason. For that matter, Zwingli and the Anabaptists retained them, but the Soccinians, the ancestors of the Unitarian Churches of Transylvania and Hungary, did not, instead proceeding on a more nuda scriptura basis.

None of them enjoying Biblical authority, right?

It is ultimately the first two Ecumenical Councils and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed that establish the doctrine of the Trinity. Scripture is of course compatible with it, but the fact remains, both the Arians and the Christians were quoting from the same Bible. Indeed Eusebius of Caesarea was an Arian sympathizer, and his Diocese (which was extremely prestigious due to its location near Jerusalem before the rebuilding of that city was complete) received an order of fifty Bibles for Rome, while Alexandria around the same time received an order of fifty Bibles for the new capital in Constantinople. It seems probable that at least two of the three Alexandrian text type Bibles were connected to these orders (probably the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

 

[Clare73]

If scripture was so clear

Which does not alter the fact that it is the only authority for three persons in one God.

you wouldn't have had Arianism, Nestorianism, etc and even today people refusing to believe scripture and the Church Councils. As I said, scripture isn't adequate to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity.

All you've shown in your posts is that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
You do realize there is much more to the Trinity.

More persons?
More than is presented in post #31?

 

[concretecamper]

Which does not alter the fact that it is the only authority for three persons in one God.

Your assumption not proven by scripture. That's ok, your choice, but don't pretend the everyone has to believe your personal idea

 

[The Liturgist]

I would have to examine Arius on that myself to be persuaded he actually used the Gospels to articulate his doctrine in contradiction of the NT testimony thereof.

Be my guest, be my guest, put my knowledge to the test, for my knowledge of Patristics is never second best…

I suggest Arius by Dr. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury (and before that, of Wales), as well as De Incarnatione by St. Athanasius and the Panarion by St. Epiphanius of Salamis.

Agreed. . .Sola Scriptura requires only that tradition be in agreement with Scripture.

None of them enjoying Biblical authority, right?

The Soccinians maintained that they had Biblical authority, as did the early American Unitarians. It was only starting with Ralph Waldo Emerson that the Unitarians adopted the transcendentalist attitude which led their denomination to its current post-Christian status. And the Unitarians of Transylvania and Hungary still insist they are Sola Scriptura Christians. There is also the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland, which is non-creedal and has a membership which is largely Unitarian or Arian, and which is absolutely Sola Scriptura.

 

[Clare73]

Your assumption not proven by scripture. That's ok, your choice, but don't pretend the everyone has to believe your personal idea

My "assumption:" Scripture is the only authority for three persons in one God.

My proof: "Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Corinthians 4:6)

 

[Clare73]

Be my guest, be my guest, put my knowledge to the test, for
my knowledge of Patristics is never second best…

No doubt about that!

I suggest Arius by Dr. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury (and before that, of Wales), as well as De Incarnatione by St. Athanasius and the Panarion by St. Epiphanius of Salamis.

But please don't hold your breath waiting for me to investigate Arius.

Agreed. . .Sola Scriptura requires only that tradition be in agreement with Scripture.

The Soccinians maintained that they had Biblical authority, as did the early American Unitarians. It was only starting with Ralph Waldo Emerson that the Unitarians adopted the transcendentalist attitude which led their denomination to its current post-Christian status. And the Unitarians of Transylvania and Hungary still insist they are Sola Scriptura Christians. There is also the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland, which is non-creedal and has a membership which is largely Unitarian or Arian, and which is absolutely Sola Scriptura.

 

[concretecamper]

My "assumption:" Scripture is the only authority for three persons in one God.

Yes, you incorrect assumption

My proof: "Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Paul is talking about pride, not Tradition.