understanding the Trinity

[RandyPNW]

Does the Trinity express God as a Split Personality?

I don't rest my argument for the Trinity on "mystery," although it's certainly a matter transcending the capacity of finite minds to understand fully the Infinite.

Most Christians don't spend 2 hours thinking about the Trinity--not their thing. Some think it's wiser to go on a missionary trip, or pray. Some are thinkers, and recognize the importance of the Trinity to Christianity. Without it, Jesus can't be God, and as such, he can't then redeem us from sin.

Is the description of God as "undecided" in the OT express a less than Infinite God?

The language ascribed to Deity recognizes that God is speaking thru anthropomorphisms. God, in other words, acts like a human so that humans can understand Him. Some of Greek philosophy saw Deity as impassible, but the Scriptures portray God as a God of revelation, a God expressing Himself to man through His Word.

I speak of God revealing Himself as other Persons of the Trinity as a step through "gradations." It's "for lack of an easier way to describe it." I hope you understand I'm not expressing Gnosticism, but rather, the matter of transcendence. This is the "gradation" I'm speaking of, going from the Infinite to the finite, and the reverse. An interesting possible portrayal of this is "Jacob's Ladder," in which angels are seen descending and ascending between heaven and earth.

Jesus used similar terminology here:
John 1.51 He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”

God's Word created a human body and a human soul to express His infinite Divine Personality.

Nestorianism was like that "Split Personality" conception of Christ that I referred to. He tried to put a divine person and a human person together without properly explaining their unity. The heretic Cerinthus, early on, apparently claimed that the "Christ" descended into the man Jesus. This separates the man from his office. The Deity and humanity of Jesus cannot be divided, in orthodoxy.

So what I'm saying is that God has a transcendent omnipotent Personality, and can thus express Himself lower down the chain, in a lower "gradation," in the finite world. To do that His Word must form into the shape of something material and something finite. The human personality of Jesus assumes a finite form, and yet the *idea* expressed is an Infinite one. Jesus, as finite man, is the infinite God. That's what God's Word is expressing here.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @RandyPNW, Biblical "mysteries" are things that we know are true (because the Bible tells us that they are) even though the Lord has not given us enough information to know everything about them and/or to fully comprehend them (or, as you mentioned in your OP, they are Biblical truths that we are not yet 'capable' of fully comprehending, like the Trinity or Omnipresence .. or that we may never be capable of fully understanding, on either side of the grave).

As the Bible tells us,

Deuteronomy 29
29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.
​

So, while we can study these mysteries to a point, and we should (as I believe that God wants us to), we also need to trust that God has set the limits that He has (to our knowledge and/or understanding) for a very good reason, and be satisfied with that (and, of course, because going further can only be done at this point in time/in our finite state by conjecture).

Quite frankly, the Trinity is a Biblical mystery that no one has even been able to discover a good/helpful analogy for yet (because our analogies always end up teaching a heretical version of the Godhead). Here, for instance, is what the Trinity is, via a humorous look at what it is not

God bless you!

--David

 

[RandyPNW]

Hello @RandyPNW, Biblical "mysteries" are things that we know are true (because the Bible tells us that they are) even though the Lord has not given us enough information to know everything about them and/or to fully comprehend them (or, as you mentioned in your OP, they are Biblical truths that we are not yet 'capable' of fully comprehending, like the Trinity or Omnipresence .. or that we may never be capable of fully understanding, on either side of the grave).

As the Bible tells us,

Deuteronomy 29
29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.
​

So, while we can study these mysteries to a point, and we should (as I believe that God wants us to), we also need to trust that God has set the limits that He has (to our knowledge and/or understanding) for a very good reason, and be satisfied with that (and, of course, because going further can only be done at this point in time/in our finite state by conjecture).

Quite frankly, the Trinity is a Biblical mystery that no one has even been able to discover a good/helpful analogy for yet (because our analogies always end up teaching a heretical version of the Godhead). Here, for instance, is what the Trinity is, via a humorous look at what it is not

God bless you!

--David

Thanks, I enjoyed that!

 

[Nux]

Hello @RandyPNW! May I ask you a question? What do you believe is the only source of truth and the the only way to know it?

 

[The Liturgist]

Does the Trinity express God as a Split Personality?

I don't rest my argument for the Trinity on "mystery," although it's certainly a matter transcending the capacity of finite minds to understand fully the Infinite.

Most Christians don't spend 2 hours thinking about the Trinity--not their thing. Some think it's wiser to go on a missionary trip, or pray. Some are thinkers, and recognize the importance of the Trinity to Christianity. Without it, Jesus can't be God, and as such, he can't then redeem us from sin.

Is the description of God as "undecided" in the OT express a less than Infinite God?

The language ascribed to Deity recognizes that God is speaking thru anthropomorphisms. God, in other words, acts like a human so that humans can understand Him. Some of Greek philosophy saw Deity as impassible, but the Scriptures portray God as a God of revelation, a God expressing Himself to man through His Word.

I speak of God revealing Himself as other Persons of the Trinity as a step through "gradations." It's "for lack of an easier way to describe it." I hope you understand I'm not expressing Gnosticism, but rather, the matter of transcendence. This is the "gradation" I'm speaking of, going from the Infinite to the finite, and the reverse. An interesting possible portrayal of this is "Jacob's Ladder," in which angels are seen descending and ascending between heaven and earth.

Jesus used similar terminology here:
John 1.51 He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”

God's Word created a human body and a human soul to express His infinite Divine Personality.

Nestorianism was like that "Split Personality" conception of Christ that I referred to. He tried to put a divine person and a human person together without properly explaining their unity. The heretic Cerinthus, early on, apparently claimed that the "Christ" descended into the man Jesus. This separates the man from his office. The Deity and humanity of Jesus cannot be divided, in orthodoxy.

So what I'm saying is that God has a transcendent omnipotent Personality, and can thus express Himself lower down the chain, in a lower "gradation," in the finite world. To do that His Word must form into the shape of something material and something finite. The human personality of Jesus assumes a finite form, and yet the *idea* expressed is an Infinite one. Jesus, as finite man, is the infinite God. That's what God's Word is expressing here.

That’s a good guess, but I think St. Gregory Palamas of Mount Athos does a better job of explaining the concurrent immanence and transcendence through the distinction between the unknowable essence, and the uncreated energies, of God. Also, I feel like your hierarchical model violates the Christological principals of Hypostatic Union, and Communicatio Idiomatum, and I really dislike the word “gradation” used anywhere in Christology and Triadology, which is innovative and not part of the Patristic expressions.

Alternatively, if you were to provide a definition of your Christological model using apophatic theology, that is to say, the via negativa, using negation rather than affirmation to the fullest extent possible, it might turn out that I agree with it.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Hello @RandyPNW, Biblical "mysteries" are things that we know are true (because the Bible tells us that they are) even though the Lord has not given us enough information to know everything about them and/or to fully comprehend them (or, as you mentioned in your OP, they are Biblical truths that we are not yet 'capable' of fully comprehending, like the Trinity or Omnipresence .. or that we may never be capable of fully understanding, on either side of the grave).

As the Bible tells us,

Deuteronomy 29
29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.
​

So, while we can study these mysteries to a point, and we should (as I believe that God wants us to), we also need to trust that God has set the limits that He has (to our knowledge and/or understanding) for a very good reason, and be satisfied with that (and, of course, because going further can only be done at this point in time/in our finite state by conjecture).

Quite frankly, the Trinity is a Biblical mystery that no one has even been able to discover a good/helpful analogy for yet (because our analogies always end up teaching a heretical version of the Godhead). Here, for instance, is what the Trinity is, via a humorous look at what it is not

God bless you!

--David

I like the the triple point of water. All three states at the same time, all three water.

 

[RandyPNW]

That’s a good guess, but I think St. Gregory Palamas of Mount Athos does a better job of explaining the concurrent immanence and transcendence through the distinction between the unknowable essence, and the uncreated energies, of God. Also, I feel like your hierarchical model violates the Christological principals of Hypostatic Union, and Communicatio Idiomatum, and I really dislike the word “gradation” used anywhere in Christology and Triadology, which is innovative and not part of the Patristic expressions.

Alternatively, if you were to provide a definition of your Christological model using apophatic theology, that is to say, the via negativa, using negation rather than affirmation to the fullest extent possible, it might turn out that I agree with it.

It sounds that you simply reject my own unique expression of what otherwise is an orthodox expression of the Trinity. I like using my own terminology. It's always best to stay current with modern methods of communication. It helps, sometimes, to read a different biblical version to understand a particular Bible passage, or even to read it in a different language. More synonyms may be viewed as better.

But yes, it helps to maintain connection with the original arguments by using the same terminology. However, "gradations" is, I think, a helpful synonym for other expressions that indicate the relationship between the infinite and the finite, the transcendent and the immanent. Jacob's Ladder I used as a metaphor for this distinction, and should be easily understood.

What you may have missed is my particular focus on the word of God, which I think the Church Fathers also used. In my own language I'm expressing, through the word of God, the *divine idea* that the transcendent, infinite God is still God even though He appears in a less than infinite form. This *idea* is the unifying element of Deity that connects the infinite and its finite expression--not any sense of a a material gradation.

One cannot show a gradation between an infinite substance and a material substance, since God is not a material substance at all. God *transcends* all material reality, and as such is united with the material substance of Christ by the Divine idea, and not by comparing gradations between the two.

No, the idea is to compare the difference between the two in terms of infinite and finite qualities, and then to combine them through a divine idea that defines the latter as a legitimate expression of the former. In this I can make a positive proposal of who God is and what He can do without simply saying what He is not. God can, logically, express Himself, as an infinite, transcendent Being, in finite forms and in a finite human personality.

 

[The Liturgist]

It sounds that you simply reject my own unique expression of what otherwise is an orthodox expression of the Trinity.

Of course I reject it, and I question that it is “otherwise orthodox” because it uses superfluous innovations in terminology not found in the Creed or the Early Church.

I like using my own terminology. It's always best to stay current with modern methods of communication. It helps, sometimes, to read a different biblical version to understand a particular Bible passage, or even to read it in a different language. More synonyms may be viewed as better.

Using your own terminology is dangerous, and also pointless when a well understood system of terminology already exists. The Nestorian and Chalcedonian schisms were caused only by technology.

But yes, it helps to maintain connection with the original arguments by using the same terminology. However, "gradations" is, I think, a helpful synonym for other expressions that indicate the relationship between the infinite and the finite, the transcendent and the immanent. Jacob's Ladder I used as a metaphor for this distinction, and should be easily understood.

I think these are particularly toxic in triadology because they challenge coequality, hypostatic union and communicatio idiomatum

What you may have missed is my particular focus on the word of God, which I think the Church Fathers also used. In my own language I'm expressing, through the word of God, the *divine idea* that the transcendent, infinite God is still God even though He appears in a less than infinite form. This *idea* is the unifying element of Deity that connects the infinite and its finite expression--not any sense of a a material gradation.

One cannot show a gradation between an infinite substance and a material substance, since God is not a material substance at all. God *transcends* all material reality, and as such is united with the material substance of Christ by the Divine idea, and not by comparing gradations between the two.

No, the idea is to compare the difference between the two in terms of infinite and finite qualities, and then to combine them through a divine idea that defines the latter as a legitimate expression of the former. In this I can make a positive proposal of who God is and what He can do without simply saying what He is not. God can, logically, express Himself, as an infinite, transcendent Being, in finite forms and in a finite human personality.

God could also, being omnipotent, logically express Himself as an infinite transcendent being in infinite forms and in an infinite divine personality, so that proves nothing. Via negativa. Also, what does John 1:1-18 say?

 

[RandyPNW]

Of course I reject it, and I question that it is “otherwise orthodox” because it uses superfluous innovations in terminology not found in the Creed or the Early Church.

You're being inflexible if you reject synonyms that apply the same truths in more modern times. You might as well reject all modern translations of Scriptures.

Using your own terminology is dangerous, and also pointless when a well understood system of terminology already exists. The Nestorian and Chalcedonian schisms were caused only by technology.

There is a reason that new biblical translations come into being without threatening the orthodox understanding. To say that using different words than were used earlier is a threat to orthodoxy is ludicrous if all we're doing is talking about using synonyms.

You haven't indicated a single thing I said that threatens the orthodox understanding. The formula of 3 persons in 1 substance is intact in my own description. I'm only expressing the same in terms of how I understand it.

I think these are particularly toxic in triadology because they challenge coequality, hypostatic union and communicatio idiomatum

Nothing I said challenges the hypostatic union, and explains how we can attribute both divine and human natures in Christ. The infinite God, by virtue of His Deity, is able to express Himself in finite forms without violating His Deity. This is simply an attribute of God, and is understood as a function of His creativity, otherwise known as His "Word."

God could also, being omnipotent, logically express Himself as an infinite transcendent being in infinite forms and in an infinite divine personality, so that proves nothing. Via negativa. Also, what does John 1:1-18 say?

Your statement that God logically expresses Himself as an infinite transcendent Being in infinite forms does not logically negate His expression of Himself in finite forms, as well. You've proven nothing whatsoever, except that you've asserted a truism about God, that He expresses Himself in ways that only He understands, since He alone is infinite.

 

[RandyPNW]

Hello @RandyPNW! May I ask you a question? What do you believe is the only source of truth and the the only way to know it?

I distinguish between God's written Word aka the Scriptures and God's spoken Word. As helpful as the written Word of God is, revelation and understanding comes by God's *spoken Word.*

God's Word must be communicated to, or revealed to, our mind through the agency of divine will. We understand truth when we receive that revelation, which is universal.

We always are given to know truth in one form or another, according to our capacity and limited by any incapacities or disabilities we may have. To have a full understanding of some things we must conform to any conditions God imposes in order for us to understand those things.

For example, all men may know, to some degree, what is "right." This is a universal revelation from God to the consciences of all men. If they are insane or imbecilic, their understanding of the "right" will, of course, be severely clouded.

But God requires, for us to understand spiritual regeneration, that we commit our will completely to His lordship. We have to be willing to exchange our independent will for a will that relies completely on God's will. Our moral values are given up in exchange for His moral values. Our self-guidance is given up for deference to how He may lead us.

So there are different levels of truth. We can know there is one God, and we can even know Christ. But we cannot know spiritual regeneration without meeting its condition of complete surrender to the will of God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I like the the triple point of water. All three states at the same time, all three water.

Yeah I didn’t really see a problem with that analogy, it just depends on how you define each different state of water. If you define each different state of water as each personality of God then I don’t see a problem with it. This analogy would only be considered modalism if a person were to say that God takes on three different appearances but is still the one same personality. So I think it’s just in how you define each state of water. Each state of water represents a different personality not the appearance of a different personality.

 

[The Liturgist]

I like the the triple point of water. All three states at the same time, all three water.

The problem with that explanation is that it is classically Modalist, literally per se Sabellian. It de-personalizes and disenhypostasizes the three Persons of the Trinity, reducing them to mere states of being, and is therefore contrary to the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, the creedal hymns like Te Deum Laudamus and Ho Monogenes, and the Quincunque Vult, which some call the Athanasian Creed.

Now I know full well you aren’t a Sabellian / Modalist, because I have seen your posts elsewhere which exude the sweet fragrance of Orthodoxy. But the idea of the Trinity explained as ice, water and steam is a literally, historically Modalist explanation, because these conditions are mode. In fact I think it even appears in the annoying Trinitarian video with the Leprechauns and St. Patrick on LutheranSatire, which remains entertaining but long ago lost its amusement value.

It is also a scientifically erroneous metaphor, because superheated ionized gases can become plasma, and supercooled solids, a Bose-Einstein condensate, which were states of matter* unknown in antiquity, but if we include at least plasma, that is four states and the metaphorical model has collapsed.

This is why I strongly urge against the use of any novel or extra-creedal terms to describe the Trinity. The correct answer is, and always will be, solely the Trinity refers to the unity of God in three persons, nothing more, nothing less, and I would add that if anyone finds that incomprehensible, that’s fine, because Scripture teaches us and logic confirms that God is essentially unknowable except through the Incarnation (John 1:18).

*The Bose-Einstein condensate might not be technically a different state thqn solid, but things frozen to near absolute zero do behave in strange and interesting ways.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yeah I didn’t really see a problem with that analogy, it just depends on how you define each different state of water. If you define each different state of water as each personality of God then I don’t see a problem with it. This analogy would only be considered modalism if a person were to say that God takes on three different appearances but is still the one same personality. So I think it’s just in how you define each state of water. Each state of water represents a different personality not the appearance of a different personality.

No, that’s still an error because each divine person is a person with their own hypostasis, not a mere personality. Humans can have multiple personas or personalities.

 

[The Liturgist]

You're being inflexible if you reject synonyms that apply the same truths in more modern times. You might as well reject all modern translations of Scriptures.

That would be true if I were rejecting a synonym, but I am not. Gradation is a novel expression which implies hierarchy. The belief of the Church is the three persons are coequal, and even though you indicate you believe that, using words like Gradation causes confusion.

There is a reason that new biblical translations come into being without threatening the orthodox understanding. To say that using different words than were used earlier is a threat to orthodoxy is ludicrous if all we're doing is talking about using synonyms.

Which I would passionately argue we are not - gradation is novel and misleading, in my opinion.

You haven't indicated a single thing I said that threatens the orthodox understanding. The formula of 3 persons in 1 substance is intact in my own description. I'm only expressing the same in terms of how I understand it.

That is untrue - I specifically cited gradation as a source of confusion because it can imply a hitherto undefined hierarchy.

Nothing I said challenges the hypostatic union, and explains how we can attribute both divine and human natures in Christ.

It does, by threatening the principle of communicatio idiomatum. Chalcedonian Christology requires that I can say “God died on the cross” and “A man walked on the waters of a lake in a storm”

The infinite God, by virtue of His Deity, is able to express Himself in finite forms without violating His Deity. This is simply an attribute of God, and is understood as a function of His creativity, otherwise known as His "Word."

Two new cans of worms just popped open ironically because the advice of @St_Worm2 was not heeded. Your first sentence is a Christological error because our Lord was not willed into existence but took on His finite humanity from biological parturition, from the Virgin Mary. If the son of God merely willed Himself into a human body, he might be functionally human, but ontologically this would be doubtful as he would have no human ancestry; truly anthropic, but not a true anthropos.

Secondly, the Incarnation of the Logos, and there is no evidence that creativity is limited to the Only begotten Son and Word of God, indeed, this violates the principle of coequality by taking an attribute, which, by the way, we probably shouldn’t even say God has; I prefer the Cappadocian quote that God is the fullness of every quality and perfection, taken to the highest degree of the infinite” (either Basil or Gregory Nazianzus said that, and my quote is rough because I am working from the Greek and it has been a few years, so, to put it another way, God does not have creativity, He is creativity), did not become incarnate of Himself, but of the Holy Spirit (this is also in the Nicene Creed).

Your statement that God logically expresses Himself as an infinite transcendent Being in infinite forms does not logically negate His expression of Himself in finite forms, as well.

Nor was it intended to. John 1:18 clearly demonstrates this, and the Spirit has also been perceived as a dove and as tongues of fire, and the voice of the Father heard audibly. It would be helpful if you read what I wrote more carefully.

You've proven nothing whatsoever, except that you've asserted a truism about God, that He expresses Himself in ways that only He understands, since He alone is infinite.

No, I haven’t said that either, since a Roman Catholic who might accept the Thomistic doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity could also say that. Nor did I seek to prove anything about the Divine Essence, because God is essentially unknowable; using the data of revelations, mainly Scripture, we can only reason about what God is not, not what God is. Therefore, the correct way of disagreeing with your assertions of gradations is to say that the divine nature is undivided and immutable, and these contradict the concept of gradation. Communicatio idiomatum requires that human idioms expressed in Christ be communicated to the divine nature, and vice versa, so whereas humanity is inferior to divinity, in the person of Christ what is otherwise separated becomes unified. Otherwise, His passion would not help us.

 

[RandyPNW]

That would be true if I were rejecting a synonym, but I am not. Gradation is a novel expression which implies hierarchy. The belief of the Church is the three persons are coequal, and even though you indicate you believe that, using words like Gradation causes confusion.

You're too smart to get so confused! "Gradation" suggests there is a difference between the infinite and the finite. I've given you the context. But I won't pursue this indefinitely.

Which I would passionately argue we are not - gradation is novel and misleading, in my opinion.

Are you concerned that I'm misleading you, or are you concerned others will be misled?

That is untrue - I specifically cited gradation as a source of confusion because it can imply a hitherto undefined hierarchy.

The difference between the Father and the Son does involve gradation. I've defined that as the difference between the infinite and the finite. That may appear confusing because we know the Father and the Son are both equally God. They share the same divine substance.

But it is critical that we understand their difference as well. One is invisible in unapproachable light. The other is expressed as the light of revelation. He is the revelation of God in a finite substance--human flesh. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

It does, by threatening the principle of communicatio idiomatum. Chalcedonian Christology requires that I can say “God died on the cross” and “A man walked on the waters of a lake in a storm”

Yes, for some "Mary is the Mother of God" sounds perfectly orthodox, but can also be confusing to some. I don't have a problem with it except when I hear Catholics express it weirdly, to exalt Mary as the "queen of heaven."

Two new cans of worms just popped open ironically because the advice of @St_Worm2 was not heeded. Your first sentence is a Christological error because our Lord was not willed into existence but took on His finite humanity from biological parturition, from the Virgin Mary. If the son of God merely willed Himself into a human body, he might be functionally human, but ontologically this would be doubtful as he would have no human ancestry; truly anthropic, but not a true anthropos.

The Son of God, as God Himself, did will Himself into human form, just as the Son of God, as God Himself, created the universe. Both the Father and the Son operated as the one God, creating the universe and expressing Himself in the form of the Son of God.

The language becomes difficult when we describe the Son of God in a pre-incarnate state. He preexisted his form as the Son of God as God Himself, and not as a man. And so, the Son of God can be said to have preexisted his human form--not in the form of the Son of God, but as the preexistent God. He was "with God" in the sense of having shared Deity in his preexistent existence.

Secondly, the Incarnation of the Logos, and there is no evidence that creativity is limited to the Only begotten Son and Word of God, indeed, this violates the principle of coequality by taking an attribute, which, by the way, we probably shouldn’t even say God has; I prefer the Cappadocian quote that God is the fullness of every quality and perfection, taken to the highest degree of the infinite” (either Basil or Gregory Nazianzus said that, and my quote is rough because I am working from the Greek and it has been a few years, so, to put it another way, God does not have creativity, He is creativity), did not become incarnate of Himself, but of the Holy Spirit (this is also in the Nicene Creed).

I'm not going to get hung up on attributing to God passible human attributes, such as "creating." The Scriptures say God has creativity and did create, period. If Jesus, by definition, was the preexistent and self-existent Deity, then by default Jesus is involved in everything his Father is doing, only with the condition that he as the Son of God is relegated to human form. The Son of God therefore is involved in the sum total of all of God's creativity--otherwise, he is less than divine.

The Word of God is the full expression of God's creativity. And the Scriptures say that that Word assumed the form of human flesh in Jesus, the Son of God.

Nor was it intended to. John 1:18 clearly demonstrates this, and the Spirit has also been perceived as a dove and as tongues of fire, and the voice of the Father heard audibly. It would be helpful if you read what I wrote more carefully.

And you accuse me of being confusing?

No, I haven’t said that either, since a Roman Catholic who might accept the Thomistic doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity could also say that. Nor did I seek to prove anything about the Divine Essence, because God is essentially unknowable; using the data of revelations, mainly Scripture, we can only reason about what God is not, not what God is.

That's silly. We know who God is by the revelation of His Word in our human experience. Not only has God revealed His person in the Son of God, but He has been speaking to the human conscience from the beginning of our creation. We don't know God as by a negative, but rather, by the positive of confession that emanates from His own mouth. It is called "light" in the Scriptures, revealing who He is. To know what He is not is clearly not enough!

Therefore, the correct way of disagreeing with your assertions of gradations is to say that the divine nature is undivided and immutable, and these contradict the concept of gradation. Communicatio idiomatum requires that human idioms expressed in Christ be communicated to the divine nature, and vice versa, so whereas humanity is inferior to divinity, in the person of Christ what is otherwise separated becomes unified. Otherwise, His passion would not help us.

I understand that God is expressed by the language of metaphor, the infinite being expressed in finite terms so that we can understand Him. But divine revelation is actually the communication of the infinite *through* this medium, not just as an illustration, but more, as a direct communication.

Ancient philosophy sometimes saw this as a logical contradiction, that the infinite be communicated to the finite, except through analogy. But the claim of the Scriptures is that God does exactly that, communicating His infinite Being in finite terms, not just by way of analogy, but also directly, through personal relationship. In relating with the Son of God, we relate with God Himself.

 

[RandyPNW]

The problem with that explanation is that it is classically Modalist, literally per se Sabellian. It de-personalizes and disenhypostasizes the three Persons of the Trinity, reducing them to mere states of being, and is therefore contrary to the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, the creedal hymns like Te Deum Laudamus and Ho Monogenes, and the Quincunque Vult, which some call the Athanasian Creed.

Now I know full well you aren’t a Sabellian / Modalist, because I have seen your posts elsewhere which exude the sweet fragrance of Orthodoxy. But the idea of the Trinity explained as ice, water and steam is a literally, historically Modalist explanation, because these conditions are mode. In fact I think it even appears in the annoying Trinitarian video with the Leprechauns and St. Patrick on LutheranSatire, which remains entertaining but long ago lost its amusement value.

It is also a scientifically erroneous metaphor, because superheated ionized gases can become plasma, and supercooled solids, a Bose-Einstein condensate, which were states of matter* unknown in antiquity, but if we include at least plasma, that is four states and the metaphorical model has collapsed.

This is why I strongly urge against the use of any novel or extra-creedal terms to describe the Trinity. The correct answer is, and always will be, solely the Trinity refers to the unity of God in three persons, nothing more, nothing less, and I would add that if anyone finds that incomprehensible, that’s fine, because Scripture teaches us and logic confirms that God is essentially unknowable except through the Incarnation (John 1:18).

*The Bose-Einstein condensate might not be technically a different state thqn solid, but things frozen to near absolute zero do behave in strange and interesting ways.

I agree with you, that analogies like the different forms of water sound modalistic. What is the basis of union between various forms of water except that all of them are called "water?" However, they are just analogies, and as such, do not require proving the basis of their unity other than the fact all of their various forms identify as water.

There certainly can be more than just 3 forms of water, and still prove that there can be a "trinity" of forms at a minimum. I don't think God is purely a Trinity either, although He is that. God, in theory, could reveal His divine personality in many Messiahs, if He so desired!

In the same way, the Father, Son, and Spirit enjoy distinct definitions, and yet are unified as the one God. I don't, however, find that belief in the Trinity is mere acceptance of a formula. Those who came up with the Trinitarian formula did so through reason.

The idea of a connection between the uncreated and the created does not violate the unity of the Father and the Son on the basis of gradations of matter, as if the infinite and the finite are separated on the quantity of their material substance. If all we had to go on was the degree of material difference between the Father and the Son, the Father would be separated from the Son by the nth degree!

However, the Father and the Son are united, as infinite and finite expressions on the basis of God's Word alone, and not on the basis of material difference. God's Word, by its very definition, is logically capable of expressing the infinite God in finite ideas, whether as communications to the minds of men or as appearing as the Son of God.

 

[The Liturgist]

You're too smart to get so confused! "Gradation" suggests there is a difference between the infinite and the finite. I've given you the context. But I won't pursue this indefinitely.

But really its not a question of infinite and finite, but between the Creator and His Creation, which are equally holy. Also, gradation has an inherent hierarchical connotation, e.g. “grades” and also “gradient,” both of which are theologically inapplicable.

Are you concerned that I'm misleading you, or are you concerned others will be misled?

I am concerned that any novel terminology, whether you or I use it, which is not at least dynamically, but preferably literally, equivalent, to the existing Patristic definition of the Holy Trinity can lead to confusion, including the prospects of confusing ourselves. This is not a “me is right, you is wrong cuz me sez so” type of deal; I myself am deeply concerned about inadvertently using erroneous terminology and thus inadvertently leading my congregation astray. In my youth I never heard a sermon on the Trinity; its importance only became apparent to me when I immersed myself in the liturgical churches, particularly the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, who completely integrate the deity of our Lord into their prayers in a way I think is unsurpassed (the classical Western prayer, based on the form of the Roman Collect, which follows the format “Heavenly Father, who did A, B and C, grant us X, Y and Z through Jesus Christ our Lord” is not defective, but the Western Rite lacks things such as the Eastern Orthodox Usual Beginning “Let us fall down and worship Christ our God.” More powerful.

The difference between the Father and the Son does involve gradation. I've defined that as the difference between the infinite and the finite. That may appear confusing because we know the Father and the Son are both equally God. They share the same divine substance.

Here you are confusing the consubstantiality of Christ with mankind with His separate personhood from the Father, with whom he is coequal. But the problem is, while the divine is superior to the human nature, the human nature is deified by the consubstantial union with the divine. Hence, we can call Christ, who is God, the Son of Man, and it is a matter of Ephesian and Chalcedonian doctrine and that of all major denominations (including Luther, Calvin, and the Anglicans) to say the Virgin Mary gave birth to God.

But it is critical that we understand their difference as well. One is invisible in unapproachable light. The other is expressed as the light of revelation. He is the revelation of God in a finite substance--human flesh. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

This is entirely correct and is elegantly phrased, and unapproachable light is a term to describe the unknowable essence that I particularly like, for its connections to the mystical theology of Symeon the New and Gregory Palamas, and Hesychasm. So I love how you express this.

Yes, for some "Mary is the Mother of God" sounds perfectly orthodox, but can also be confusing to some. I don't have a problem with it except when I hear Catholics express it weirdly, to exalt Mary as the "queen of heaven."

We are of one mind on this as well, although after careful study I have come to sympathize with the Catholics, but I prefer the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and high church Anglican expressions as being closer to the terminology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus

The Son of God, as God Himself, did will Himself into human form, just as the Son of God, as God Himself, created the universe. Both the Father and the Son operated as the one God, creating the universe and expressing Himself in the form of the Son of God.

The specific means of the incarnation was the impregnation of the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit. So I think it is ideal to say the Holy Spirit sent the Son, who then sent the Holy Spirit to be our Paraclete. But there is obviously no discord in the Trinity, which Metropolitan Kallistos Ware called a union of perfect love. So there is nothing wrong with your statement, although I prefer to be more specific and follow the sequence of events as outlined in the Nicene Creed.

The language becomes difficult when we describe the Son of God in a pre-incarnate state. He preexisted his form as the Son of God as God Himself, and not as a man. And so, the Son of God can be said to have preexisted his human form--not in the form of the Son of God, but as the preexistent God. He was "with God" in the sense of having shared Deity in his preexistent existence.

Yes, but as a distinct person, begotten of the Father before all ages. Also consider that by Him all things were made, including time itself. God is eternal and immutable according to the Scriptures and the Fathers. So the concept of a pre-Incarnate Christ might possibly be an anthropocentric abstraction, so I prefer to avoid it where possible, because scripture hints at God experiencing time in a way completely different to us, and this is logical, if we view God as eternal and space and time as creatured.

I'm not going to get hung up on attributing to God passible human attributes, such as "creating." The Scriptures say God has creativity and did create, period. If Jesus, by definition, was the preexistent and self-existent Deity, then by default Jesus is involved in everything his Father is doing, only with the condition that he as the Son of God is relegated to human form. The Son of God therefore is involved in the sum total of all of God's creativity--otherwise, he is less than divine.

Good, I believe I myself said the same thing to you, but it appears the gulf betwixt us is narrowing rapidly.

The Word of God is the full expression of God's creativity. And the Scriptures say that that Word assumed the form of human flesh in Jesus, the Son of God.

I agree entirely; my point is merely that in the process of assuming human flesh, the Word became incarnate by the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, and the Virgin Mary, according to the Gospels and the Creeds.

And you accuse me of being confusing?

No, surely not; my point is that gradation is a novel and in and of itself potential confusion to the doctrine of the Trinity. Your prose is easier to understand than mine, clearly, owing to my fondness for baroque syntax, obscure vocabulary and occasional whimsical turns of phrase, particularly when seeking elegant ways of hinting at the ineffable and at times seemingly paradoxical nature of the divine.

That's silly. We know who God is by the revelation of His Word in our human experience. Not only has God revealed His person in the Son of God, but He has been speaking to the human conscience from the beginning of our creation. We don't know God as by a negative, but rather, by the positive of confession that emanates from His own mouth. It is called "light" in the Scriptures, revealing who He is. To know what He is not is clearly not enough!

You misunderstand me. The via negativa, or apophatic theology, is used to state what is knowable from revelation about God without being able to see into what you called the “unapproachable light.” But because of what Scripture says, we can say what the infinite and unknowable God is not, without risking making unprovable assertions about the unknown. And, lest you dismiss apophatic theology, which is the preferred method of all of the great Church Fathers of Greece, Syria, Egypt and their successors, as being silly, I would urge you to merely dismiss my explanation of it as flawed, and study it for yourself, because, as is plainly evident, I am by no means as comprehensible as I might prefer, particularly when posting with less than optimal sleep.

I understand that God is expressed by the language of metaphor, the infinite being expressed in finite terms so that we can understand Him. But divine revelation is actually the communication of the infinite *through* this medium, not just as an illustration, but more, as a direct communication.

Ancient philosophy sometimes saw this as a logical contradiction, that the infinite be communicated to the finite, except through analogy. But the claim of the Scriptures is that God does exactly that, communicating His infinite Being in finite terms, not just by way of analogy, but also directly, through personal relationship. In relating with the Son of God, we relate with God Himself.

I agree entirely, for this is the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum.

As of right now the only real issue we have is the word “gradation,” since on closer examination, it seems to me your triadology (trinitarian theology) and Christology is fully compatible with mine, and I hope, we can both hope, that of the early Church.

 

[Fervent]

One of the biggest impediments to understanding the Trinity is that it is not meant to be an identity, yet that is how it is treated. Everything we can say about God we can only say as analogous, as there is nothing that is truly like God nor anything that possess properties in the same manner as God. As such, Trinity is not meant to express an absolute being of God but to make Him accessible to us. God is not identically a Trinity, but has revealed Himself to us as a Trinity to invite us into His inner experience. God is externally single(one in being), yet internally tri-parite(3 in person). Forcing the analogy to an identity causes it to no longer be a true expression of who God is.

 

[The Liturgist]

One of the biggest impediments to understanding the Trinity is that it is not meant to be an identity, yet that is how it is treated. Everything we can say about God we can only say as analogous, as there is nothing that is truly like God nor anything that possess properties in the same manner as God. As such, Trinity is not meant to express an absolute being of God but to make Him accessible to us. God is not identically a Trinity, but has revealed Himself to us as a Trinity to invite us into His inner experience. God is externally single(one in being), yet internally tri-parite(3 in person). Forcing the analogy to an identity causes it to no longer be a true expression of who God is.

I greatly appreciate your appreciation for apophatic theology