catholics, orthodox, and protestants: can you explain the trinity?

firedragon said:

Thats from the official creed. If you disagree with it that's your prerogative

Click to expand...

I understand my own creeds perfectly well. You do not, if you believe that we worship one essence in three separate beings as you said above.

In my prior posts, I explained what Trinitarianism entails and how it is distinguished from the heresies of Tritheism and Modalism.

And that's where I'm leaving it from my side. Have a great day!

Vouthon said:

I understand my own creeds perfectly well. You do not, if you believe that we worship one essence in three separate beings as you said above.

In my prior posts, I explained what Trinitarianism entails and how it is distinguished from the heresies of Tritheism and Modalism.

And that's where I'm leaving it from my side. Have a great day!

Click to expand...

Sorry if I hurt your ego. But I was only giving you your own creed. If you think they are one being, as I said its your prerogative. So your problem is with the 4th century ecclesia. Not me.

Have a great day.

Vouthon said:

In respect to that point, I would need to correct you.

No one hypostasis in God is able to subject or dictate to another because the "will" belongs to the divine nature and is common, not distinct in the individual hypostasis.

The only way in which the hypostases differ, are really distinct from one another, is in their eternal relations of origin - Father is Begetter / Filiation, Son is begotten / generated and the Holy Spirit proceeds / spirates.

In everything else, they are perfectly one. In no other way do they differ. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes in his Summa: "in God there is no real distinction but that of origin".

There is only one God, and so there is only one divine nature which each simply is. Each subsisting hypostasis has the common nature of God, namely, His single spiritual nature, mind, will, and intellect.

"Will" is common to the ousia (essence, being) and not individuated to the hypostases (persons) along with everything else about God save these "subsisting relations of the one essence" to Itself alone.

Click to expand...

Hope all things are good at your place in these plaguey times.

Thanks for your remarks. Without doubting their orthodoxy, I find it hard to get past the observation that one will = one person, not three persons as claimed, and that if there's only one will then Father, Son and Ghost are merely different manifestations of the single entity, thus ruling out their individuality, without which there is no trinityness.

Yahweh and the ruach in the Tanakh are not taken to be two entities, for example.

firedragon said:

Sorry if I hurt your ego. But I was only giving you your own creed. If you think they are one being, as I said its your prerogative. So your problem is with the 4th century ecclesia. Not me.

Have a great day.

Click to expand...

Thank you! No, I can assure you that my problem is with you my friend and not St. Athanasius.

It is evident that you do not understand the creeds correctly. In my honest judgment, you have a fair bit of study and Christian theological training to do, if you fail to yet appreciate that consubstantial in the Nicene creed means of one being and substance, not three beings. We are not and have never been tritheists but rather Trinitarian monotheists.

The divine hypostases are three subsisting and concrete instances of one divine being, not three separate beings.

A good starting book for you to read - if you are interested in properly engaging with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan dogma accurately - would be God in Patristic Thought by George Leonard Prestige (1936).

However, our discussion is clearly not getting anywhere nor is it likely to do so. For that reason, I must bid you again a great day.

Terrywoodenpic said:

The Bible does not state the Trinity at all.

Click to expand...

It does...but you have to read my posts to meandflower and vouthon to know what I mean.

The relationship between three entities makes them one in essence and purpose.

How christians express it is not near the point of the undivided relationship the creator, savior, and spirit have that makes them one.

Whether it's called the Trinity, relationship between three, or whatever biblical the idea is the same.

What do you mean by trinity that is not expressed by majority of christians?

Each Christian tends to have their own interpretations but they all see the three person's having the same role.

It's all symantics

Vouthon said:

Thank you! No,

Click to expand...

Great. Cheers.

Unveiled Artist said:

For sake of simple conversation, though, I was just going by how the bible defines the relationship between creator, savior, and holy spirit and how they are the same in divinity even though the creator isn't a human being.

Click to expand...

Where does it say all three of them are the same?

I would agree that it is Symantics, but it is in no way petty..
I consider it pure invention and take the Unitarian Christian position.

I can believe that God, Jesus and the Holy spirit exist.
I could believe that they all have the power of God.
But I doubt that they all have equal power
Which I believe always comes from God
However I do not believe that they are other than individual beings, and different in nature.

blü 2 said:

Hope all things are good at your place in these plaguey times.

Thanks for your remarks. Without doubting their orthodoxy, I find it hard to get past the observation that one will = one person, not three persons as claimed, and that if there's only one will then Father, Son and Ghost are merely different manifestations of the single entity, thus ruling out their individuality, without which there is no trinityness.

Yahweh and the ruach in the Tanakh are not taken to be two entities, for example.

Click to expand...

Blu,

Many thanks for your response! I likewise hope that everything is well on your end vis-à-vis the pandemic situation and in general.

You make a good point, I will try and explain how it is understood in the creedal formulations.

We believe in something called the 'inseparable operation of God'.

It holds that whilst the Trinity does function in a Triune way i.e. the Father (by means of his relation of paternity in the divine essence) sends, the Son (by means of his relation of filiation) acts and the Holy Spirit (by means of his relation of procession) perfects, each person works according to the one undivided will, intellect and spirit, that constitutes God as a single being.

We have to carefully scrutinize what the council Fathers (and indeed Tertullian, Athanasius etc.) actually meant by persons here, because it does not carry our modern connotations of independent agency and being. It means three subsisting and concrete relations of one divine being, not three 'individual' minds with independent agencies, wills, thoughts and intentions etc. The persons are nothing other than the active relations subsisting in the eternal divine ousia.

The personality of God, His consciousness, is found in the common essence (the ousia), because as St. Thomas Aquinas tells us in the Summa: “the act of God’s intellect is His substance (essence)” and thus His self-consciousness as an object in Himself is common to the Persons as one 'being', rather than individuated. So there cannot be three divine 'wills'.

Consider the Second Council of Constantinople (553 CE), which says, in Anathema 1:


The Tome of Damascus from the Council of Rome in 382 likewise says:



Their differentiation is not in will, mind or spirit (they are each the same Being whole and undivided) but only that the Father is neither begotten nor spirated; the Son is begotten but not spirated; the Spirit is not begotten but is spirated - these distinct relations of origin within the divine essence.

These constitute their sole distinguishing attributes as 'persons' (concrete instantiations, or subsisting relations, of one being to Itself). The relations existing within the one divine being do not change what God is – and considered according to their existence, they simply are what God is because God is simple – but they do place the being of God in a series of self-differentiating relational oppositions, which subsist in the divine essence and are traditionally named ‘persons’.

If I can quote one patristic scholar, Stephen Holmes:

Vouthon said:

Blu,

Many thanks for your response! I likewise hope that everything is well on your end vis-à-vis the pandemic situation and in general.

You make a good point, I will try and explain how it is understood in the creedal formulations.

We believe in something called the 'inseparable operation of God'.

It holds that whilst the Trinity does function in a Triune way i.e. the Father (by means of his relation of paternity in the divine essence) sends, the Son (by means of his relation of filiation) acts and the Holy Spirit (by means of his relation of procession) perfects, each person works according to the one undivided will, intellect and spirit, that constitutes God as a single being.

We have to carefully scrutinize what the council Fathers (and indeed Tertullian, Athanasius etc.) actually meant by persons here, because it does not carry our modern connotations of independent agency and being. It means three subsisting and concrete relations of one divine being, not three 'individual' minds with independent agencies, wills, thoughts and intentions etc. The persons are nothing other than the active relations subsisting in the eternal divine ousia.

The personality of God, his consciousness, is found in the common essence (the ousia) because as St. Thomas Aquinas tells us in the Summa: “the act of God’s intellect is His substance (essence)” and thus His self-consciousness as an object in Himself is common to the Persons as one 'being', rather than individuated. So there cannot be three divine 'wills'.

Consider the Second Council of Constantinople (553 CE), which says, in Anathema 1:

If anyone will not confess that the Father, Son and holy Spirit have one nature or substance, that they have one power and authority, that there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons: let him be anathema. (Tanner 1990, 114)

​

The Tome of Damascus from the Council of Rome in 382 likewise says:

Anyone who denies that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have one Godhead, one might, one majesty, one power, one glory, one Lordship, one kingdom, one will and truth, is a heretic. (Dupuis 2001, para. 306/20)
​

Their differentiation is not in will, mind or spirit (they are each the same Being whole and undivided) but only that the Father is neither begotten nor spirated; the Son is begotten but not spirated; the Spirit is not begotten but is spirated - these distinct relations of origin within the divine essence.

These constitute their sole distinguishing attributes as 'persons' (concrete instantiations, or subsisting relations, of one being to Itself). The relations existing within the one divine being do not change what God is – and considered according to their existence, they simply are what God is because God is simple – but they do place the being of God in a series of self-differentiating relational oppositions, which subsist in the divine essence and are traditionally named ‘persons’.

If I can quote one patristic scholar, Stephen Holmes:

"There are three divine hypostases that are instantiations of the divine nature: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The three divine hypostases are distinguished by eternal relations of origin – begetting and proceeding – and not otherwise.

All that is spoken of God, with the single and very limited exception of that language which refers to the relations of origin of the three hypostases, is spoken of the one life the three share, and so is indivisibly spoken of all three. The relationships of origin express/establish relational distinctions between the three existent hypostases; no other distinctions are permissible".​

Click to expand...

Hmmm.

Well ....

Ahmmmm.

Then on that construction, the Jesuses of Mark and of Matthew really did say, 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?'

And all gospel four were praying to themselves in the garden, and submitting to their own will.

The answer to which is, there's no trinity concept in the bible itself ─ it comes later. Or so it seems to me.

blü 2 said:

Hmmm.

Well ....

Ahmmmm.

Then on that construction, the Jesuses of Mark and of Matthew really did say, 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?'

And all gospel four were praying to themselves in the garden, and submitting to their own will.

The answer to which is, there's no trinity concept in the bible itself ─ or so it seems to me.

Click to expand...

This is where, I would say, the Chalcedonian doctrine of Jesus's two natures (the Hypostatic Union of divine and human) gets complicated, because while there is only one undivided divine will for the one divine ousia (the Triune God), Jesus has a human will and mind according to his human nature, in addition to the Divine Will that he has in common with the Trinity, as the incarnation of the second person of God, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes.

So, we believe that God the Son assumed a human nature complete with its own rational human soul, that constitutes one person with a single centre of consciousness, the subject of which is the Divine Word:


Catechism of the Catholic Church | Catholic Culture








One scholar described the implications of this doctrinal formulation, as follows (in laymen's terms):

blü 2 said:

The answer to which is, there's no trinity concept in the bible itself ─ it comes later. Or so it seems to me.

Click to expand...

On that point, in relation to the New Testament, it's indisputably the case that it does not use words like ousia (consubstantial, of one essence or being), persons or Trinity.

The first to use quasi-Trinity language as we know it today, was St. Theophilus of Antioch in 169 A.D.

Yet whilst the 'language' used is post-biblical, it is nevertheless still an attempt to articulate ideas that can be found in the New Testament but not yet 'phrased' in the philosophically sophisticated ontology of Greek and Latin scholars.

The New Testament authors were Jews relying upon Hebraic phraseology (in Greek, which Hellenistic Jews had been using for quite some time by then) to express these same basic, underlying concepts in the way that they had available to them.

However, I would say that the consensus of modern scholars is that the roots - in crude and primitive form (not yet expressed with the penetrating philosophical and technical acumen of the later Church Fathers) - of the later Trinity are already implicit in the New Testament, in the form of a Binitarianism with a triadic discourse in relation to God.

Jesus is already cast in Pauline epistles like Corinthians and Romans, and in the Gospel of John and Epistle of the Hebrews, as the earthly incarnation of the pre-existent divine Word / Son, who always existed in relation to the Father in eternity, and through whom the universe was created.

And this Father - Son dynamic within the one reality of God, is always spoken of in relation to the Spirit, even though the latter is not yet fully personified in the NT.

The 'Son' is referred to as the Image of God ("who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His being" (Hebrews 1:3)) and also as 'begotten' (first-born, begotten means to be 'born') in a number of NT texts. “Monogenes” is the Greek word used for “begotten” in John 3:16, John 3:18, John 1:14, John 1:18 and 1 John 4:9.

In every scriptural verse where John employs the word MONOGENES, it is in a context in which he simultaneously relies on the term GENNAO “new birth” (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). That is no accident. The Johannine author is intentionally making a distinction between the new birth that believers experience and the Son’s unique begottenness from the Father.




So, the basic concept and even terminology of God being one, yet having within this one reality a relation of Father and Son, whereby the latter is the begotten self-image of the former and both are one Creator God, is already there.

And the latter theologians relied upon the exegesis of such verses to define Trinitarian theology at the councils.

Consider this from the Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, dated 324, the year before the Council of Nicaea, as an example of how they did so:

Unveiled Artist said:

I've heard Jehovah used for the name of the creator and the term "god" as a synonym for essence, divinity, etc in which creator/savior/spirit share.

God the creator
God the son
God the holy spirit

But, like I said posts ago, it depends on the person's relationship with god and their interpretation of the bible as trinitarians. Protestant interpretation and catholic interpretation are different. JW just as much different if not more.

Click to expand...

No, the catholics and most protestants interpret the trinity in exactly the same way

Meandflower said:

No, the catholics and most protestants interpret the trinity in exactly the same way

Click to expand...

They don't. Catholics are more interactive and protestants (thinking of southern baptist and other fundamentalists) are more passive. They may use the same words-christian jargon-but by no means do they view the trinity the same way.

One main difference is from what I know the catholic church has a solid definition shared by catholics. Protestant churches are individual in nature not as a congregation. Another is that both parties don't share the same authority in who defines scripture and how relationship is defined in relation to who Is the creator. I don't know of any catholics I've met so far who believe jesus is the creator. In Mass, the priest holds the wine and bread up to god/creator not to himself. People take part of christ to be in union with the creator. Protestants don't have that (unless you're saying maybe Lutherans or something similar). From personal experience, their views on the trinity are totally different. It would be an insult to protestants to associate their view (or each person's individual view) with catholics because majority of them don't consider themselves dogmatic.

Another big difference is the Church has two authorities-the Church (Apostolic secession) and Scripture. Many protestants have only one written authority-Scripture. So whatever or however the Church clarifies to the trinity and other teaches of scripture is totally not the same if not missing (or rejected) by protestants.

They use the same terms and language, but the concepts (and experiences) aren't the same.

That's one of the main reasons there are protestants is because they reject a lot of the interpretations and church authority of those interpretations. @Vouthon is the only catholic I came across that sees christ as the creator. I don't think even @metis explains it that way so that I remember. There's always been a "love relationship" with them that christians cannot separate.

I speak of it as separate to make a point but I know they are not in practice.

It depends on the type of relationship a christian has and their experiences.

Unveiled Artist said:

They don't. Catholics are more interactive and protestants (thinking of southern baptist and other fundamentalists) are more passive. They may use the same words-christian jargon-but by no means do they view the trinity the same way.

One main difference is from what I know the catholic church has a solid definition shared by catholics. Protestant churches are individual in nature not as a congregation. Another is that both parties don't share the same authority in who defines scripture and how relationship is defined in relation to who Is the creator. I don't know of any catholics I've met so far who believe jesus is the creator. In Mass, the priest holds the wine and bread up to god/creator not to himself. People take part of christ to be in union with the creator. Protestants don't have that (unless you're saying maybe Lutherans or something similar). From personal experience, their views on the trinity are totally different. It would be an insult to protestants to associate their view (or each person's individual view) with catholics because majority of them don't consider themselves dogmatic.

Another big difference is the Church has two authorities-the Church (Apostolic secession) and Scripture. Many protestants have only one written authority-Scripture. So whatever or however the Church clarifies to the trinity and other teaches of scripture is totally not the same if not missing (or rejected) by protestants.

They use the same terms and language, but the concepts (and experiences) aren't the same.

That's one of the main reasons there are protestants is because they reject a lot of the interpretations and church authority of those interpretations. @Vouthon is the only catholic I came across that sees christ as the creator. I don't think even @metis explains it that way so that I remember. There's always been a "love relationship" with them that christians cannot separate.

I speak of it as separate to make a point but I know they are not in practice.

It depends on the type of relationship a christian has and their experiences.

Click to expand...

The catholics you have met, did they believe Jesus was God? And what did they believe about the Holy spirit?

I feel like this thread is not working.

At all.

Catholics believe Jesus is God

Here is the part of the Nicene Creed - that nearly all Christians believe - that deals with it:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

And this part,

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

Is anyone other than God allowed to be adored and glorified?

Of course not.

Rival said:

I feel like this thread is not working.

At all.

Catholics believe Jesus is God

Here is the part of the Nicene Creed - that nearly all Christians believe - that deals with it:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

Click to expand...

Yes and catholics, ortodox and protestants believe in only one God. They do not believe in three beings/gods/entities

They believe God is only one Being shared by three persons.
The three persons in God can communicate with each other and is loving each other but at the same time they share the same Being.

Jews believe God is only one Being and one person. But christians believe God is only one Being and three persons.

So jews believe in strict monotheism and christians believe in soft monotheism

The Bible do NOT support the belief in three gods\entities\beings

So according to catholics, ortodox and most protestants: God is only one Being, shared by three persons

Yes this tread is not working. Many who answer refuse to admit they do not understand the trinity.

Meandflower said:

The catholics you have met, did they believe Jesus was God? And what did they believe about the Holy spirit?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Though they didn't believe he was the creator.

Father, son, "and" holy spirit

They believe they are the same in essence (what relates the three) but not in substance.

God the father
God the son
God the holy spirit

I'm explaining the Trinity as a relationship because that's how it's explained and translated in scripture. It doesn't say Jesus Is the creator (Jesus would probably faint if he heard that), but it talks in the manner in the divinity they share.

Tritheism doesn't refer to that essence. I don't even think it's in Christianity at all.

But like I quoted from you earlier,trinity refers to the
essence, "what" forms that relation-ship, shared, and English terms like and/with/of/in all denote one or two things in relation to others.

The difference is christians don't "see" the difference. Just for sake of conversation there is, therefore the word trinity not unity is used.

Unveiled Artist said:

Yes.

Though they didn't believe he was the creator.

Father, son, "and" holy spirit

They believe they are the same in essence (what relates the three) but not in substance.

God the father
God the son
God the holy spirit

I'm explaining the Trinity as a relationship because that's how it's explained and translated in scripture. It doesn't say Jesus Is the creator (Jesus would probably faint if he heard that), but it talks in the manner in the divinity they share.

Tritheism doesn't refer to that essence. I don't even think it's in Christianity at all.

But like I quoted from you earlier,trinity refers to the
essence, "what" forms that relation-ship, shared, and English terms like and/with/of/in all denote one or two things in relation to others.

The difference is christians don't "see" the difference. Just for sake of conversation there is, therefore the word trinity not unity is used.

Click to expand...

What do you mean with 'they did not believe he was the creator'? Did they believe Jesus is God or not? According to the trinity doctrine God is the creator.

Meandflower said:

Well then you know only people who believe in tritheism

According to the trinity doctrine:

Tri = three persons

Unity = one Being/Substance/Essence

Click to expand...

I use relationship because tri already refers to three and unity describes the relationship they have with each other.

Seeing them as each other depends on the christian but biblically words like in/of/and/with/of prepositions show relationship.

I haven't read in the bible Jesus IS the creator. All christians I spoke with refer to it as shared essence and they cannot tell the difference between the three no less talk about them separately.

That's okay.

I just gave my thoughts on your OP...whatever you and christians believe is your choice. It makes no nevermind to me personally just by how I experienced it as a former catholic.