What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[BobRyan]

Perhaps you missed #1 and a part of #2.

1. There is one God
2. There are three persons in the one God.

How can three be so united that they are actually one? That, I don't know. I don't believe that the Trinity "makes sense" in that it escapes being a mystery. We don't confess the Trinity because it "makes sense". We confess it because it's what the Scriptures seem to be saying.

The Scriptures clearly affirm that there is only one God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is not the Father. The Scriptures clearly affirm that the Father is God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that the Holy Spirit is God. The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Put that all together and you get Trinity.

As Bruce Waltke has said, we need to distinguish between ignorance and mystery. Ignorance can be overcome with knowledge. Mystery cannot be overcome, .

Agreed - and in that vein I take it that you agree that Trinity means "one God in three persons"

 

[Tree of Life]

Agreed - and in that vein I take it that you agree that Trinity means "one God in three persons"

Yes I would be fine with that formulation.

 

[Colter]

This thread is not intended for anyone who rejects the Trinity because people that reject the trinity might give a different definition for it - one that even Trinitarians reject - so that does not address the question.

I believe "One God in three Persons" as the "blessed Trinity", eternal, infinite all powerful all knowing -- all three persons. Yet all included in the "ONE God" concept, infinitely complex topic - so not trying to reduce it to a nutshell.

How about your belief in the Trinity? How do you define what Trinity is?

I believe in a Trinity as well as a number of other Trinity origin beings. I believe Jesus is a Son OF the Trinity (not the second person of the Trinity) and co-creator of our world.

 

[hedrick]

Who on earth goes around saying "God is the supreme substance"? - i doubt we have heard much of that on this forum.

What is more "transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories" - looks like more hand waiving.

But a handy quote all the same.

What "transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories" means is that this interpretation goes beyond what the simple substance metaphysics that Hogshead1 was criticizing can handle. It's really getting at what many people have said, that the main point of the Trinity is that God is inherently personal and relational. Given this concept, I'm not so sure that three hypostases with one ousia is the most natural way to state it, but Christian tradition tends to stick with established dogma and reinterpret it. (Of course in this case the basis for the reinterpretation is Augustine, so this is certainly not some kind of modernist change.)

 

[Cappadocious]

Have you guys defined hypostasis yet?

 

[hedrick]

Have you guys defined hypostasis yet?

That was the purpose of the Catholic Encyclopedia quote. They defined person, which in this context is hypostasis.

 

[Hoghead1]

What "transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories" means is that this interpretation goes beyond what the simple substance metaphysics that Hogshead1 was criticizing can handle. It's really getting at what many people have said, that the main point of the Trinity is that God is inherently personal and relational. Given this concept, I'm not so sure that three hypostases with one ousia is the most natural way to state it, but Christian tradition tends to stick with established dogma and reinterpret it. (Of course in this case the basis for the reinterpretation is Augustine, so this is certainly not some kind of modernist change.)

No, no. That's way, way off. In brief, Aristotle spoke of ten categories. There was substance, which was independent and did not change. Then there were changing features, such as the color, position, etc. Since God does not change in any way, or have any physical features, these latter categories did not apply to God.

 

[Erose]

I can only guess that you did not follow up and search it out yourself. The whole trouble with creeds and statements of doctrine is that they reveal things, but conceal things not mentioned. An unbiased read of the Bible can lead one to unexpected riches.

I've been doing that for 30+ years now and have never ever seen a reference of seven more divine spirits. Seven spirits? Yes. Standing before the throne, but not on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Erose]

I believe in a Trinity as well as a number of other Trinity origin beings. I believe Jesus is a Son OF the Trinity (not the second person of the Trinity) and co-creator of our world.

What the heck does that mean?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes I would be fine with that formulation.

But if you are thinking of the members of the trinity as each separate, unique personalities, then you have tritheism. You are positing three gods. What they all have in common is Deity.

 

[Cappadocious]

That was the purpose of the Catholic Encyclopedia quote. They defined person, which in this context is hypostasis.

So some persons are hypostaseis, or persons in some context or other. That is hardly a definition.

 

[Cappadocious]

But if you are thinking of the members of the trinity as each separate, unique personalities, then you have tritheism. You are positing three gods. What they all have in common is Deity.

What is the demonstration for this?

 

[BobRyan]

I believe in a Trinity as well as a number of other Trinity origin beings. I believe Jesus is a Son OF the Trinity (not the second person of the Trinity) and co-creator of our world.

You believe He is "Son of the Trinity AND the co-creator of our world"??

Did Jesus create our world after Mary gave birth to Him in your view?

"Other Trinity origin beings"??? Sounds a bit pagan -- are you sure??

 

[BobRyan]

Have you guys defined hypostasis yet?

"the accumulation of fluid or blood in the lower parts of the body or organs under the influence of gravity, as occurs in cases of poor circulation "

 

[Hoghead1]

What is the demonstration for this?

Common sense. Also, I explained this to you before. You didn't get it then, so I doubt if you'll get it now.

 

[Tree of Life]

But if you are thinking of the members of the trinity as each separate, unique personalities, then you have tritheism. You are positing three gods. What they all have in common is Deity.

The churches disagree.

 

[Colter]

You believe He is "Son of the Trinity AND the co-creator of our world"??

Did Jesus create our world after Mary gave birth to Him in your view?

"Other Trinity origin beings"??? Sounds a bit pagan -- are you sure??

How could Jesus create the world after Mary gave birth to him? How does the stupidity of that question elude you?

* I believe Jesus is a creator Son of God, creator of our world.

* I believe he is a creation of the paradise Trinity.

The universe is very large, many galaxies.

 

[Hoghead1]

The churches disagree.

What specific church do you have in mind? I'm PCUSA and I know many clergy and major contemporary theologians who would agree with me. One of the first things pointed out in seminary classes on the Trinity is that the term "person" did not mean "person" in our modern sense of the term. It meant a role someone plays. Modalism was considered a heresy, but it is widely accepted today.

 

[hedrick]

So some persons are hypostaseis, or persons in some context or other. That is hardly a definition.

This discussion all seems weird to me, because this is elementary church history or doctrine. I’m going to give you traditional Catholic definitions. The East may not precisely agree, but it’s similar. I'm taking this from the section on the Trinity in the Summa, from newadvent.org.

If you want a clear definition, Aquinas defines a person as “a subsistent individual of a rational nature.” Hypostasis is more general, as it is not necessarily rational. However since God is rational, in the context of the Trinity hypostasis and person are the same. (Aquinas also notes differences between God and humans, so that you have to be careful about the exact sense of individual and rational when referring to God.)

With normal people, it’s obvious that we are subsistent individuals, and one hopes most of us are rational. However the question is whether God is three subsistent individuals. That kind of sounds like tritheism, the criticism Hoghead1 was making.

Aquinas, however, wants to use the classical definition of person, but he also wants to say that in the Trinity the persons are defined only by their relations. So the arguments is this: persons are by definition individuals. But what it means to be individual depends upon your nature. For humans it means having separate flesh, bones and soul, because that’s the nature of humans.

But, he argues, distinction in God is only by relation. In particular, the Father is paternity, the Son is begotten from him and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. [I’m extrapolating from what he actually said.] Therefore for the divine persons, distinction and individuality come from their relations to each other, the Father being source, etc.

He connects this with traditional substance metaphysics by saying that “… this is to signify relation by way of substance, and such a relation is a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature, although in truth that which subsists in the divine nature is the divine nature itself.” Thus while person / hypostasis and relation are often used as synonyms, in fact person “signifies relation not as such, but by way of a substance--which is a hypostasis.” My dummy version of this is that you can’t have relations in the abstract. It has to be between two things. But in this case the things involved are distinguished only by their relations with each other.

At least this is what I get from him, given that some of his metaphysical statements don’t make much sense to me.

My comment would be that this seems like the best one can do given the starting point of traditional definitions. But I’m not convinced that bringing substance into it helps much. I’d prefer simply to say that God is personal and has the experience of personal relationship, but I don’t think I’d try to go further in defining it metaphysically.

However the Trinity exists not just as a way of saying that God as personal, but as a consequence of a specific history of Christological arguments. But I'm even less convinced that substance metaphysics is the right way to deal with the Incarnation, even though Aquinas manages to interpret it in a way that deals with some of the potential shortcomings.

 

[Hoghead1]

Here's a very famous visual representation of the Trinity that I think sums up the doctrine nicely:

OK, so it would then appear that the Father is not God, not the Boss of bosses, not the power behind the throne. Right? The Father is just one dimension of a God who includes all three and therefore transcends any one of them. So why would you pray to the Father. He is not the guy in charge, the ultimate power. God or meta-God is.