Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In the definition of the Trinity, the actual term is hypostasis.
that diagram is actually rather misleading. In Eastern theology most strongly, but also in Western, it's not so symmetrical. The Father is the source, with the Son begotten from him and the Sprit proceeding from him.Here's a very famous visual representation of the Trinity that I think sums up the doctrine nicely:
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.
I actually found your post rather incoherent. Could you rephrase what you're trying to say?
Well then, you are in for some big surprises. believe me. Also, ordination into the PCUSA, as is true of other Protestant denominations, does not require you to take a stand on modalism or even evolution, for that matter.
The way you drew up the Trinity makes it appear that the ultimate reality and authority is God, whose power transcends that of the Father, Son, or Spirit. If you believed the Father was teh Boss of bosses, then you would have represented the Trinity much differently. You might have said something like the Father is analogous to the Sun, the Persons to the light emitted from the Sun. But the way you have it, the Persons all emanate out from some central authority you label as God.
If he actually says that I would agree with you, since the whole point of the Logos is that his way of being with cus (among other meanings) is intrinsic to him. But I never said that that this whole approach is the best way to deal with Scripture.
Yes, you are talking about three gods. You are saying the one God resides in the fact that they all share a common nature, call it Deity, divinity, godhood. So the same applies to you as to the three men sharing human nature, and the three Nose gods all sharing godhood.
I didn't say anything about rejecting the Trinity. What I said is that many favor a kind of modalism.
Yes, he actually says that. Read his description of God. Even neo-Thomists are concerned with his claim that God has no "real relationship" to creation.
Well, how else is it to be read? I went on exactly what the diagram described. It did not put the Father as ultimate power, not al all. It is a bad diagram for the Trinity. I've already told you that and so has another member. So why don't you drop it?
