Are the Persons of the Trinity different?

[Elvendon]

The question of the nature of the trinity is quite interesting for me: - Are the persons of the trinity in any way distinct from each other? Their equality and mutuality is without doubt among orthodox followings, but do they have different roles, different nature's or suchlike?

 

[Katzpur]

The question of the nature of the trinity is quite interesting for me: - Are the persons of the trinity in any way distinct from each other? Their equality and mutuality is without doubt among orthodox followings, but do they have different roles, different nature's or suchlike?

:yes: To begin with, I would not use the term "Trinity" at all, since it is intrinsically linked to the Nicene Creed, which creed established the doctrine accepted by traditional Christianity today. I would instead use the word "Godhead," which is has its origin in the Bible. The same persons who comprise the "Trinity" also comprise the "Godhead," but the biblical references to the Godhead make it quite clear that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, while being "one" are also physically distinct from one another. A few of us Christians believe that both God the Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, have immortal bodies of flesh and bones, that the Son is "in the express image of His Father's person" and that we were created in their literal image, after their likeness. We also believe that the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit, if you prefer) is a personage of spirit only. It is through the Holy Ghost that we as human beings are able to obey the commandment to worship God "in spirit and in truth." The three of them (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) are one in will and purpose, one in power and glory, and one in all of the attributes that make God "God." The only area in which they are not "one" is their physical makeup. They are physically distinct from one another, but absolutely and perfectly "one" in every other respect.

 

[Elvendon]

:yes: To begin with, I would not use the term "Trinity" at all, since it is intrinsically linked to the Nicene Creed, which creed established the doctrine accepted by traditional Christianity today. I would instead use the word "Godhead," which is has its origin in the Bible. The same persons who comprise the "Trinity" also comprise the "Godhead," but the biblical references to the Godhead make it quite clear that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, while being "one" are also physically distinct from one another. A few of us Christians believe that both God the Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, have immortal bodies of flesh and bones, that the Son is "in the express image of His Father's person" and that we were created in their literal image, after their likeness. We also believe that the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit, if you prefer) is a personage of spirit only. It is through the Holy Ghost that we as human beings are able to obey the commandment to worship God "in spirit and in truth." The three of them (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) are one in will and purpose, one in power and glory, and one in all of the attributes that make God "God." The only area in which they are not "one" is their physical makeup. They are physically distinct from one another, but absolutely and perfectly "one" in every other respect.

I see... I suspect that the LDS view is slightly different to those of other denominations though... especially with respect to the Holy Ghost (which, in my mind, has always appeared as more of an all-permeating force rather than a person) and so I'm interested to see what they say.

Fantastic reply though thanks!

 

[Katzpur]

I see... I suspect that the LDS view is slightly different to those of other denominations though... especially with respect to the Holy Ghost (which, in my mind, has always appeared as more of an all-permeating force rather than a person) and so I'm interested to see what they say.

Fantastic reply though thanks!

Actually, I believe the LDS and traditional Christian understanding on the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ are probably closer than our understanding of the nature of God the Father. Since I'm at work and don't have access to all of my bookmarked favorite websites, I am at a little bit of a disadvantage here. But, to the best of my recollection, the early Creeds do use the word "person" with respect to the Holy Ghost. This does not mean that they (or we) believe He has a physical body, because we are in agreement that He does not. But, I, too, am interested in the answers you will receive from other Christians.

 

[Elvendon]

Actually, I believe the LDS and traditional Christian understanding on the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ are probably closer than our understanding of the nature of God the Father. Since I'm at work and don't have access to all of my bookmarked favorite websites, I am at a little bit of a disadvantage here. But, to the best of my recollection, the early Creeds do use the word "person" with respect to the Holy Ghost. This does not mean that they (or we) believe He has a physical body, because we are in agreement that He does not. But, I, too, am interested in the answers you will receive from other Christians.

I think one can still refer to a being as a "person" even if s/he or it is non-corporeal and not in the same shape as a human being. In my view, the body of the holy spirit extends throughout creation - I don't know if this is consistent with your views

Still, I'd like to see some links, if I may be so bold as to ask. From what I've read of LDS theology, it's quite original, yet orthodox.

 

[Katzpur]

I think one can still refer to a being as a "person" even if s/he or it is non-corporeal and not in the same shape as a human being. In my view, the body of the holy spirit extends throughout creation - I don't know if this is consistent with your views

Essentially, yes, it is.

As to whether or not we can refer to a being as a "person" if He is non-corporeal, here is what the Athanasian Creed (which creed I, as a Latter-day Saint, do not accept) states:

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

Still, I'd like to see some links, if I may be so bold as to ask.

The only link I could think to direct you to is pretty limited in scope. Essentially it states the following:

The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, along with God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.


The Holy Ghost is one in purpose with the Father and the Son, but is a separate being. Through Joseph Smith, the Lord revealed:

"The Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."
​

The special mission of the Holy Ghost is to testify of the Father and the Son, to reveal the truth, to comfort us, and to sanctify us. He is a divine guide and teacher.

From what I've read of LDS theology, it's quite original, yet orthodox.

Well, that's an interesting way to put it, and I've got to admit that I've heard it described in far worse terms.

 

[michel]

I think one can still refer to a being as a "person" even if s/he or it is non-corporeal and not in the same shape as a human being. In my view, the body of the holy spirit extends throughout creation - I don't know if this is consistent with your views

Still, I'd like to see some links, if I may be so bold as to ask. From what I've read of LDS theology, it's quite original, yet orthodox.

It is with mine; I am happy to accept the nicene creed (which I suppose makes life easier for me).

I am a Trinitian, and believe that the trinity describes the three 'facets' of God.

 

[Quiddity]

They are only "different" in the sense of how we perceive them. Just as if you were to ask me about how I perceive space in length, width, and depth or time in past, present, and future. Space is still space and time is still time.....

 

[James the Persian]

I find that such questions are usually down to people not understanding why person is a poor translation for hypostasis. Do you actually know what I'm getting at by this, Elvendon? I'll explain if you don't, but I've tried this several times on this forum and you may have already read one of them. Let me know if you want me to attempt this again.

James

 

[Elvendon]

Thanks for your posts everyone! I see that most people seem to err on the side of monotheism than tritheism.

I find that such questions are usually down to people not understanding why person is a poor translation for hypostasis. Do you actually know what I'm getting at by this, Elvendon? I'll explain if you don't, but I've tried this several times on this forum and you may have already read one of them. Let me know if you want me to attempt this again.

James

I'll go have a look for your previous posts - I don't want to put you to any trouble!

Thanks

EDIT: I found one of your posts James, and I now understand the Orthodox position - each person differs from the other in what makes it unique, but are together the same entity.

I must say, it's very close to what I believe. I do like the idea of the hypostases of the Trinity being distinguishable and having their own unique nature - The Father as the source of the Son and the Spirit, the Son as the creative and salvation effector and the Spirit as the omnipresent comforter and link between all things.

Cheers James ^^

 

[Katzpur]

I do like the idea of the hypostases of the Trinity being distinguishable and having their own unique nature - The Father as the source of the Son and the Spirit, the Son as the creative and salvation effector and the Spirit as the omnipresent comforter and link between all things.

This raises three questions in my mind...

How can two being who have, as their "source," be "co-eternal" with that source? That sounds like a contradiction to me.

Is the Holy Ghost the only ontologically "omnipresent" person of the Trinity? Is Jesus Christ, for example, also "omnipresent"? If so, what happened to the body of flesh and bones with which He ascended into Heaven following His resurrection?

What is the purpose of the Holy Ghost? Specifically, how does His role differ from the role of God the Father? What, if anything, does He do that the Father does not do?

 

[Elvendon]

This raises three questions in my mind...

How can two being who have, as their "source," be "co-eternal" with that source? That sounds like a contradiction to me.

Look at it this way -

Imagine a mountain. Upon this mountain is a moor. The weather patterns around the mountain change, and the moor is filled with water. From the moment the moor water forms into an aquifer, the aquifer produces a river. The river flows down the mountain, and nourises the fields of wheat below.

Now, the aquifer is the source of the river. The moment the aquifer became an aquifer, it produced the river. That doesn't mean the aquifer isn't the source.

Similarly, the Father has always produced the Son and the Spirit - though that doesn't negate from the Father's status as the divine origin.

Is the Holy Ghost the only ontologically "omnipresent" person of the Trinity? Is Jesus Christ, for example, also "omnipresent"? If so, what happened to the body of flesh and bones with which He ascended into Heaven following His resurrection?

Jesus and the Father are omnipresent insofar as they are through the Holy Spirit. I would perhaps say a provisional "yes" to that question.

What is the purpose of the Holy Ghost? Specifically, how does His role differ from the role of God the Father? What, if anything, does He do that the Father does not do?

The Holy Ghost is the paraclete - the comforter, the fire of God's love. It is the Spirit that links us to God and to each other. It guides further revelation and insight of humanity into the Word. In my view, it links the souls of all things, human, animal, plant or mineral, and forms what is considered to be the "spirit world" by other faiths.

In short, the Spirit is the Sustainer, the Son is the Creator and the Father is the Supreme Transcendent Origin. Jesus created the link between the Father and Humanity, the Holy Spirit forms the medium through which we travel along that link.

 

[James the Persian]

Look at it this way -

Imagine a mountain. Upon this mountain is a moor. The weather patterns around the mountain change, and the moor is filled with water. From the moment the moor water forms into an aquifer, the aquifer produces a river. The river flows down the mountain, and nourises the fields of wheat below.

Now, the aquifer is the source of the river. The moment the aquifer became an aquifer, it produced the river. That doesn't mean the aquifer isn't the source.

Similarly, the Father has always produced the Son and the Spirit - though that doesn't negate from the Father's status as the divine origin.



Jesus and the Father are omnipresent insofar as they are through the Holy Spirit. I would perhaps say a provisional "yes" to that question.



The Holy Ghost is the paraclete - the comforter, the fire of God's love. It is the Spirit that links us to God and to each other. It guides further revelation and insight of humanity into the Word. In my view, it links the souls of all things, human, animal, plant or mineral, and forms what is considered to be the "spirit world" by other faiths.

In short, the Spirit is the Sustainer, the Son is the Creator and the Father is the Supreme Transcendent Origin. Jesus created the link between the Father and Humanity, the Holy Spirit forms the medium through which we travel along that link.

Excellent post. I agree wholeheartedly.

James

 

[Katzpur]

Look at it this way -

Imagine a mountain. Upon this mountain is a moor. The weather patterns around the mountain change, and the moor is filled with water. From the moment the moor water forms into an aquifer, the aquifer produces a river. The river flows down the mountain, and nourises the fields of wheat below.

Now, the aquifer is the source of the river. The moment the aquifer became an aquifer, it produced the river. That doesn't mean the aquifer isn't the source.

Similarly, the Father has always produced the Son and the Spirit - though that doesn't negate from the Father's status as the divine origin.

Elvendon,

Thanks for your explanation. I'll have to admit that it's a better one than I'm used to seeing. I can't help but wonder, though, if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are co-eternal, would it be just as accurate to say that the river was the source of the aquifer? Since the word "source" describes the place of origin from which something else comes, it seems to me that the source would have to exist before that which came from it. Does that make sense?

Jesus and the Father are omnipresent insofar as they are through the Holy Spirit. I would perhaps say a provisional "yes" to that question.

So it sounds to me as if you're saying Jesus Christ, at least, is functionally omnipresent as opposed to ontologically omnipresent. Would that be an accurate statement? I, too, believe that He is fun functionally present, in other words, that his knowledge and power permeate the universe. I don't believe that He is ontologically (i.e. physically) omnipresent, since I'm assuming that He still has the flesh and bones body with which He ascended into Heaven. You didn't answer my question concerning what you believe His physical state to be now. I'm still curious about that.

The Holy Ghost is the paraclete - the comforter, the fire of God's love. It is the Spirit that links us to God and to each other. It guides further revelation and insight of humanity into the Word. In my view, it links the souls of all things, human, animal, plant or mineral, and forms what is considered to be the "spirit world" by other faiths.

While my belief system does not use the word "paraclete," that definition suits me fine. Of course, I believe that He is called the "Holy Ghost" specifically because He is the only person in the Godhead/Trinity to be solely a spirit entity. If God the Father is also both "holy" and "spirit," it seems strange to me that the Holy Ghost would be referred to by a term that could just as easily be applied to the Father.

 

[Elvendon]

Elvendon,

Thanks for your explanation. I'll have to admit that it's a better one than I'm used to seeing. I can't help but wonder, though, if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are co-eternal, would it be just as accurate to say that the river was the source of the aquifer? Since the word "source" describes the place of origin from which something else comes, it seems to me that the source would have to exist before that which came from it. Does that make sense?

Yes, I think so. I'd have to disagree, the river could never be the source of the aquifer. Essentially, one may imagine it this way - the Father could exist without the Son and the Spirit (but never has done and never would) but the Son and Spirit could not exist or come into existence without the Father. Thus the Father is the origin.

So it sounds to me as if you're saying Jesus Christ, at least, is functionally omnipresent as opposed to ontologically omnipresent. Would that be an accurate statement? I, too, believe that He is fun functionally present, in other words, that his knowledge and power permeate the universe. I don't believe that He is ontologically (i.e. physically) omnipresent, since I'm assuming that He still has the flesh and bones body with which He ascended into Heaven. You didn't answer my question concerning what you believe His physical state to be now. I'm still curious about that.

I didn't answer because I don't know However, going on scripture, I'd have to say that he is still flesh and bone, as he ascended bodily into heaven. I'd agree about the functionally/ontologically thing also.

While my belief system does not use the word "paraclete," that definition suits me fine. Of course, I believe that He is called the "Holy Ghost" specifically because He is the only person in the Godhead/Trinity to be solely a spirit entity. If God the Father is also both "holy" and "spirit," it seems strange to me that the Holy Ghost would be referred to by a term that could just as easily be applied to the Father.

Hmm that is certainly quite sensible. I usually prefer Holy Spirit because the word Ghost always conjures up images of departed spirits in my head, rather than the all-pervading essence of the divine, so its more a matter of preference. I'm not sure it's that important however...

 

[piglet17]

< Are the persons of the trinity in any way distinct from each other? >
Yes. The Father's the Father. The Son's the Son. The Spirit's the Spirit

< do they have different roles? >
The Father's souce. The Son's course. The Spirit's application

< different nature's or suchlike? >
The have one Being. God.
Thanx

 

[EverChanging]

Elvendon,

I think your view of the trinity is very rich and beautiful. Only recently have I ventured into describing my own God/Deity-concepts, which always takes much explanation on my part because I am essentially an atheist, and I have to explain that on the one hand, while also knowing that most other atheists probably think I'm off my rocker.

Do I believe in the trinity? Yes and no....Essentially, it is a theological tool for me. My understanding of it is very unorthodox, yet I could probably affirm it in the words of the Nicene Creed, something extremely uncommon for a Unitarian Universalist and someone of my own spiritual orientation. This bothered me for a while, but I just accept it for what it is.

I explain more fully my view of the trinity and the divine in this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/theology-general/53403-christians-what-god-3.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/theology-general/53403-christians-what-god-3.html

 

[ZooGirl02]

Yes, they are different but yet they are still one. God the Father is the incorporeal creator of the universe. God the Son is Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh and who will come again at the end of time. God the Holy Spirit is the incorporeal spirit that God the Son and God the Father sent to the earth to guide and comfort Christians. God the Father resides in Heaven, God the Son resides in Heaven now, and God the Holy Spirit I believe resides both in Heaven and on earth and throughout all creation.

 

[Dunemeister]

As to Jesus and omnipresence, we have to keep in mind that Jesus is a MAN. The second Person/Hypostasis of the Trinity, which shares all the qualities of divinity including omnipresence, became incarnate in the man, Jesus. Thus Jesus qua man is not omnipresent, but the Second Hypostasis is. The mystery is how God and man could merge in such a complete and unique way in Jesus. I don't know how it works. One person -- Jesus -- with two natures, divine and human. How do those interact? I shrink from such questions. They're just too much for me.