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.
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.
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.
In the definition of the Trinity, the actual term is hypostasis.So some persons are hypostaseis, or persons in some context or other. That is hardly a definition.
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.
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.
OK, but that doesn't address any of the points I raised.I pray to the Father in the name of the Son because this is how Jesus taught us to pray.
I actually found your post rather incoherent. Could you rephrase what you're trying to say?OK, but that doesn't address any of the points I raised.
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.I don't know of any denomination that would ordain someone who embraces modalism. I would be surprised to learn that they allow a modalist as an ordained minister in the PCUSA.
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.I actually found your post rather incoherent. Could you rephrase what you're trying to say?
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.I am quite critical of Thomas here. He initially introduces God as a wholly nonrelational being. Remember, God has no "real relationship" to creation. Then he tries to claim the trinity denotes complex relationships within an essentially noinrelational being. That's about as confusing and contradictory as you can get.
Good point.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.
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.
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.And that's the difference, those are three gods, and there are many men. I'm talking about the Trinity, one God. Not three. One ousia, not three.
-CryptoLutheran
I didn't say anything about rejecting the Trinity. What I said is that many favor a kind of modalism.Every denomination that I know of would require a positive affirmation and defense of the Trinity. Perhaps you can provide an example of an ordained minister within any denomination that rejects the Trinity? Or perhaps you can provide an official doctrinal statement from a denomination that rejects the Trinity? Without that I find your claim very hard to believe.
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.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.
Indeed in other discussions which weren't tied to the traditional definitions I've said that one thing I think the Trinity buys us is a God that is "incarnatable." Most other versions of monotheism have a God that is wholly other from us, which one can't imagine being incarnate. But having the Son as part of our concept of God gives us a God that is capable of incarnation.
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?I think you're reading the diagram too literally. It's just a visual representation of the following formulae:
- The Father is God
- The Son is God
- The Spirit is God
- The Father is not the Son
- The Son is not the Spirit
- The Spirit is not the Father
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?