What is the Trinity?

[Abykale]

This is partly in response to the other trinity thread in which folks are trying to convince Lost that Justin Martyr was trinitarian.

Okay, so we're all familiar with the diagram that looks like this:
Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png

But what if your concept of God looks more like this?
Attachment 47493
I have trouble explaining the differences in words, but they just feel different to me. Note that this one is clearly hierarchical, while with the traditional view I'd been told it doesn't matter what order you decide to put Father, Son and Spirit in.

Obviously both diagrams fit the trinitarian language of the Bible and at least some of the Church Fathers just fine. So it seems to me that, just because someone speaks of Christ and the Father and the Spirit as separate and yet calls them all God, doesn't mean that they see the Trinity in quite the same way the modern Church does. Justin Martyr, for instance, probably held a view that I would represent by the second diagram. At least that's what the author of my translation of him thinks:

Ancient Christian Writers Vol. 56, St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies

Justin had no real theory of divine immanence to complement his emphasis on divine transcendence. His doctrine of the logos, which we have just discussed, in fact kept the supreme Deity at a safe distance from intercourse with humankind and left the Platonic transcendence in all its bareness. God operated through the logos, who alone bridged the gulf that would otherwise have proved impassable.

In the Apologies Justin does not set forth any real Trinitarian doctrine. But he says he worshiped the Father as supreme in the Universe; he worshiped the logos or Son as divine but in the second place; he worshiped the Holy Spirit in the third place. This is the language of Christian experience and worship rather than of theological reflection. The Holy Spirit was, for Justin, the inspirer of the prophets, the guide of spiritual endeavor, the source of the spiritual gifts in the Church. Justin's experience as a Churchman took precedence over his logic. His philosophical idea of God, deriving from Middle Platonism, was too abstract for any real distinction within the Godhead such as would equate the love betwen the Father and the Son with the Spirit. In fact, the logos largely carries out the functions of the Spirit. Nevertheless, the fact that Justin has so much to say about the Spirit and refers to the traditional triadic formulas of the Church shows how strongly he was influenced by Christian worship as he had known it.

© source where applicable

Another thing. The Jews before Christ believed in the Father and his Spirit . . . yet most people don't call them binitarians. Why not?

So my main questions are:
- Would you consider anyone who believes in Christ's full divinity and coeternality with the Father, as well as his full humanity, a trinitarian? What if their view of the Holy Spirit was exactly that of modern or ancient Judaism?
- If not, how important is the Trinity, really? (Note that I'm not arguing that trinitarianism is wrong, so please don't send me to the looney bin Unorthodox Theology 201!)

Also, if anyone has any thoughts on how all this ties in with the traditional creeds, I'd be glad to hear them. I'm afraid I don't really understand the creeds myself; what do words like "begotten" and "proceeding" actually mean, anyway?

[interrapax]

your link to diagram nr 2 is broken..

[Abykale]

It disappeared!

Well, we can still discuss Justin Martyr's views . . .

[Lost]

This is partly in response to the other trinity thread in which folks are trying to convince Lost that Justin Martyr was trinitarian.

Okay, so we're all familiar with the diagram that looks like this:
Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png

But what if your concept of God looks more like this?
Attachment 47493
I have trouble explaining the differences in words, but they just feel different to me. Note that this one is clearly hierarchical, while with the traditional view I'd been told it doesn't matter what order you decide to put Father, Son and Spirit in.

Obviously both diagrams fit the trinitarian language of the Bible and at least some of the Church Fathers just fine. So it seems to me that, just because someone speaks of Christ and the Father and the Spirit as separate and yet calls them all God, doesn't mean that they see the Trinity in quite the same way the modern Church does. Justin Martyr, for instance, probably held a view that I would represent by the second diagram. At least that's what the author of my translation of him thinks:

Ancient Christian Writers Vol. 56, St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies

Justin had no real theory of divine immanence to complement his emphasis on divine transcendence. His doctrine of the logos, which we have just discussed, in fact kept the supreme Deity at a safe distance from intercourse with humankind and left the Platonic transcendence in all its bareness. God operated through the logos, who alone bridged the gulf that would otherwise have proved impassable.

In the Apologies Justin does not set forth any real Trinitarian doctrine. But he says he worshiped the Father as supreme in the Universe; he worshiped the logos or Son as divine but in the second place; he worshiped the Holy Spirit in the third place. This is the language of Christian experience and worship rather than of theological reflection. The Holy Spirit was, for Justin, the inspirer of the prophets, the guide of spiritual endeavor, the source of the spiritual gifts in the Church. Justin's experience as a Churchman took precedence over his logic. His philosophical idea of God, deriving from Middle Platonism, was too abstract for any real distinction within the Godhead such as would equate the love betwen the Father and the Son with the Spirit. In fact, the logos largely carries out the functions of the Spirit. Nevertheless, the fact that Justin has so much to say about the Spirit and refers to the traditional triadic formulas of the Church shows how strongly he was influenced by Christian worship as he had known it.

© source where applicable

Another thing. The Jews before Christ believed in the Father and his Spirit . . . yet most people don't call them binitarians. Why not?

So my main questions are:
- Would you consider anyone who believes in Christ's full divinity and coeternality with the Father, as well as his full humanity, a trinitarian? What if their view of the Holy Spirit was exactly that of modern or ancient Judaism?
- If not, how important is the Trinity, really? (Note that I'm not arguing that trinitarianism is wrong, so please don't send me to the looney bin Unorthodox Theology 201!)

Also, if anyone has any thoughts on how all this ties in with the traditional creeds, I'd be glad to hear them. I'm afraid I don't really understand the creeds myself; what do words like "begotten" and "proceeding" actually mean, anyway?

Thanks for opening this thread - I might learn something as long as it does not get too complex for my tired old brain.
Hey this cracked me up "please don't send me to the looney bin Unorthodox Theology 201"
I really want to know what is real and what is not it's just that I am damn hard to convince and I cannot handle very long and complex arguments.

[Abykale]

Here's image 2, by the way:
Trinity2.png

You all are free to argue that it gives the exact same information as the first one. Maybe it does. Or maybe it's a little more vague . . . that would still support my hypothesis.

[Lost]

Here's image 2, by the way:
Trinity2.png

You all are free to argue that it gives the exact same information as the first one. Maybe it does. Or maybe it's a little more vague . . . that would still support my hypothesis.

Looks great to me - I always thought God needed a great logo - I wonder if he designed it himself?
Sorry getting a bit flippant here.
Only problem with varying from the 4 century official version of the trinity is that back then you would have been kicked out the empire - not much fun back then.
If only they had had the internet then.

[Abykale]

Only problem with varying from the 4 century official version of the trinity is that back then you would have been kicked out the empire - not much fun back then.

Not if you lived before the fourth century.

Oh, that reminds me:

Athanasian Creed

5. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

24. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another;

© source where applicable

Here we go. That's something that the alternate view doesn't capture, and which I'm not entirely sure Justin would have said either. Considering:

Justin Martyr, First Apology

from chapter 12 And that you will not succeed is shown by the Word, and after God who begat Him we know of no ruler more kingly or more just than He.

13 Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who was also born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea in the time of Tiberius Caesar; and we will show that we worship Him rationally, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third rank. For they charge our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man second place after the unchangeable and eternal God, begetter of all things, for they do not know the mystery involved in this, to which we ask you to give heed as we expound it to you.

© source where applicable

Interestingly, while the translation I'm quoting has a footnote which claims this order "is not intended to suggest degrees of subordination within the Godhead but refers to the triad as manifested in creation and revelation", the other one I have checked out from the library says that each of these verses "seems to imply the error of subordinationism which teaches that the Father is greater than the Son". Hmm . . .

[interrapax]

The second version captures the "goes out from the Father part", does not capture the "goes out from the Son part", does not at all capture the Spirit and Son actually being God, but fokuses more that they BOTH go out from the father..

i cannot see equallity in the second model, only hierarcy..

[Whipartist]

The second model is definitely not the first model.

I agree that Justin doesn't seem to me like he's saying the same thing as the Athanasian Creed. Typically statements like his are always qualified away by someone else who comes along with a post script. but I think you're being sensitive to what he's actually saying and that it might not be the same thing as the creed.

In response to what begetting and proceeding mean.... I wish I understood. Athanasius said that Jesus was/is eternally begotten. It seems to me sometimes as I read the Bible, that we're compelled to believe some things inorder to keep out of the "looney bin," as you say. It sometimes seems like Justin, and the NT itself has a totally different concept of God than the one I have. When I read Orthodox views of God, they seem to explain more to me, and yet they are panentheistic, which is really a totally different world view.

In the interest of discussion, how can the first model be defended from the Bible as opposed to the second model?

[spitndirt]

This is partly in response to the other trinity thread in which folks are trying to convince Lost that Justin Martyr was trinitarian.

Okay, so we're all familiar with the diagram that looks like this:
Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png

But what if your concept of God looks more like this?
Attachment 47493
I have trouble explaining the differences in words, but they just feel different to me. Note that this one is clearly hierarchical, while with the traditional view I'd been told it doesn't matter what order you decide to put Father, Son and Spirit in.

Obviously both diagrams fit the trinitarian language of the Bible and at least some of the Church Fathers just fine. So it seems to me that, just because someone speaks of Christ and the Father and the Spirit as separate and yet calls them all God, doesn't mean that they see the Trinity in quite the same way the modern Church does. Justin Martyr, for instance, probably held a view that I would represent by the second diagram. At least that's what the author of my translation of him thinks:

Ancient Christian Writers Vol. 56, St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies

Justin had no real theory of divine immanence to complement his emphasis on divine transcendence. His doctrine of the logos, which we have just discussed, in fact kept the supreme Deity at a safe distance from intercourse with humankind and left the Platonic transcendence in all its bareness. God operated through the logos, who alone bridged the gulf that would otherwise have proved impassable.

In the Apologies Justin does not set forth any real Trinitarian doctrine. But he says he worshiped the Father as supreme in the Universe; he worshiped the logos or Son as divine but in the second place; he worshiped the Holy Spirit in the third place. This is the language of Christian experience and worship rather than of theological reflection. The Holy Spirit was, for Justin, the inspirer of the prophets, the guide of spiritual endeavor, the source of the spiritual gifts in the Church. Justin's experience as a Churchman took precedence over his logic. His philosophical idea of God, deriving from Middle Platonism, was too abstract for any real distinction within the Godhead such as would equate the love betwen the Father and the Son with the Spirit. In fact, the logos largely carries out the functions of the Spirit. Nevertheless, the fact that Justin has so much to say about the Spirit and refers to the traditional triadic formulas of the Church shows how strongly he was influenced by Christian worship as he had known it.

© source where applicable

Another thing. The Jews before Christ believed in the Father and his Spirit . . . yet most people don't call them binitarians. Why not?

So my main questions are:
- Would you consider anyone who believes in Christ's full divinity and coeternality with the Father, as well as his full humanity, a trinitarian? What if their view of the Holy Spirit was exactly that of modern or ancient Judaism?
- If not, how important is the Trinity, really? (Note that I'm not arguing that trinitarianism is wrong, so please don't send me to the looney bin Unorthodox Theology 201!)

Also, if anyone has any thoughts on how all this ties in with the traditional creeds, I'd be glad to hear them. I'm afraid I don't really understand the creeds myself; what do words like "begotten" and "proceeding" actually mean, anyway?

• Edited by a Moderator •

Get a grip.....

Moderated By: jnthn

No, you get a grip. Blasphemy is not permitted.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Abykale]

The second version captures the "goes out from the Father part",

does not capture the "goes out from the Son part",

True. I'm not crazy about the filioque, but you could certainly argue that it should be modified to show the Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son.

does not at all capture the Spirit and Son actually being God,

I would disagree. However, I suppose it isn't clear by looking at the image that both Spirit and Word are meant to be spoken of as persons with distinct centers of consciousness.

but fokuses more that they BOTH go out from the father..

As perhaps it should, given that wisdom theology (as far as I know) had nothing to say about how God's spirit and word related to each other.

i cannot see equallity in the second model, only hierarcy..

True.

[hedrick]

To call something Trinitarian, I would say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit must be regarded as equally God. There is no subordination in the sense of Arianism, which regarded the Son as less divine. However there is certainly subordination in that the Son obeys the Father.

Eastern theology considers that there is a precedence. The thing that holds the Trinity together is that it proceeds from a single source: the Father. The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. (By proceed I am referring to something ongoing, as a river proceeds from its source. I don't mean to imply that the Father is chronologically before the Son and Holy Spirit.)

I am not sure that I agree with the reference above to three separate centers of consciousness. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic tradition says that "the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence". It is dangerous to think of "person" in Trinitarian thought as identical to a human person. The Trinity is not exactly like three human persons. All acts of God are acts of the entire Trinity. Hence there can't be three separate centers of thought in the same sense as you'd have in three humans. Even in Eastern thought, which tended to emphasize the distinct existence of three persons more than in the West, the three persons are thought to function as a single entity, in the sense that there is a single will and action.

Here I am obviously referring to the eternal Logos. When we take the incarnation into account things are more complex, but that's because there is a separate human nature.

I'd say the diagram is dangerous only if Son and Holy Spirit are thought of as being impersonal, e.g. that the Holy Spirit is thought of as being God's power, but not as fully personal. Or if it suggests that Son and Holy Spirit are simply ways in which God acts, and do not represent something within God.

[Whipartist]

To call something Trinitarian, I would say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit must be regarded as equally God. There is no subordination in the sense of Arianism, which regarded the Son as less divine. However there is certainly subordination in that the Son obeys the Father.

Eastern theology considers that there is a precedence. The thing that holds the Trinity together is that it proceeds from a single source: the Father. The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. (By proceed I am referring to something ongoing, as a river proceeds from its source. I don't mean to imply that the Father is chronologically before the Son and Holy Spirit.)

I am not sure that I agree with the reference above to three separate centers of consciousness. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic tradition says that "the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence". It is dangerous to think of "person" in Trinitarian thought as identical to a human person. The Trinity is not exactly like three human persons. All acts of God are acts of the entire Trinity. Hence there can't be three separate centers of thought in the same sense as you'd have in three humans. Even in Eastern thought, which tended to emphasize the distinct existence of three persons more than in the West, the three persons are thought to function as a single entity, in the sense that there is a single will and action.

Here I am obviously referring to the eternal Logos. When we take the incarnation into account things are more complex, but that's because there is a separate human nature.

I'd say the diagram is dangerous only if Son and Holy Spirit are thought of as being impersonal, e.g. that the Holy Spirit is thought of as being God's power, but not as fully personal. Or if it suggests that Son and Holy Spirit are simply ways in which God acts, and do not represent something within God.

Excellent post. Welcome to Tweb hedrick.

[Jezz]

This is partly in response to the other trinity thread in which folks are trying to convince Lost that Justin Martyr was trinitarian.

Okay, so we're all familiar with the diagram that looks like this:
Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png

But what if your concept of God looks more like this?
Attachment 47493
I have trouble explaining the differences in words, but they just feel different to me. Note that this one is clearly hierarchical, while with the traditional view I'd been told it doesn't matter what order you decide to put Father, Son and Spirit in.

Obviously both diagrams fit the trinitarian language of the Bible and at least some of the Church Fathers just fine.

I disagree - the Trinitarian language of the Bible nor the Fathers doesn't fit the first view. It fits the second.

It is important to note that, in the Bible (New and Old Testaments) and in the writings of the Early Christians, the word God referred almost exclusively to the Father. The reason for this is quite simple: in traditional Judaism, the word "God" referred explicitly to a particular person - that person was of course the Father. To call the Son "God", then, was tantamount to saying that He and the Father were the same person (ie, Sabellianism).

To quote just one example (of many) from St Paul:

2 Cor 13:14

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

If anyone has ever spent some time trying to proof-text the Trinity with JWs, Christadelphians etc from Scripture, they may well have found themselves frustrated by the almost complete lack of passages where Christ is explicitly and unambiguously called "God" (to my recollection, there is only one verse where the word "God" could be interpreted as referring to Christ Himself). The reason for this is the above - it's not that they didn't think He was divine - but that to call Him "God" would be to imply that He was the same person as the Father - which He wasn't.

The apostolic and ante-Nicene Fathers (like St Justin) followed mostly in this path. When they spoke of the Trinity, they would speak mainly of God, His Logos (or Son, or Wisdom) and His Spirit. It took a long time before the language and tradition became refined enough so that Christ could be called "God" without fear of being interpreted as Sabellianism. This process was not really complete until Nicea - it was only after Nicea that Christians would freely refer to Christ as God.

Indeed, the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed itself - the definitive description of the Trinity - holds the second view. Note that the Nicene Creed (along with the Apostle's Creed) start their confession with "I believe in one God", and then immediately go on to explain that this God is "the Father Almighty". Neither of them make the same claim about Christ or the Spirit - and even the Nicene Creed (which is a little more explicit about Christ) is very careful to qualify it by saying "True God from True God", etc.

It is important to remember that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a personal God. First and foremost, the Bible tells the story of the interaction between this person (with His Son and His Spirit) with His people. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not some abstract concept, as the Greek philosophers held. That is why the Nicene Creed (and all Christian confessions from the NT itself up to this time) starts with the concrete person of the Father - not with some abstract concept of "God", or with the "essence" of God.

Another important thing to remember is that the Father is the eternal source of the other two divine persons.

Contrast this with the Athanasian Creed - which follows in the mode of the Greek philosophers - first speaking of "God" in the abstract and not as referring to one of the Persons ("we worship one God in Trinity"). This is the view in the first diagram. And have a look at what this does to the whole idea of "Trinity" (hint: count how many circles there are in the first diagram...). Also, the symmetry of the first diagram (and of the beginning of the Athanasian Creed) obscures the inherent asymmetry in the relationships between Father, Son and Spirit.

So it seems to me that, just because someone speaks of Christ and the Father and the Spirit as separate and yet calls them all God, doesn't mean that they see the Trinity in quite the same way the modern Church does.

Yes. Note that the Orthodox Church does see the Trinity in the second way - precisely because it is the way that we have seen it since ancient times. I guess that means we are not "the modern Church", which I guess is fine - while we live in the modern age, we've always claimed to be the ancient Church.

Justin Martyr, for instance, probably held a view that I would represent by the second diagram. At least that's what the author of my translation of him thinks:

The author of your translation was correct in this much. I'm not quite sure that I agree with the rest of what he wrote - specifically I don't think it correct to say that St Justin's view of God came from middle Platonism. As I pointed out above, St Justin's view gives precedence to the person of God (the Father) - it does not first talk about some abstract "divine essence", as the philosophers were accustomed to treating God.

Ancient Christian Writers Vol. 56, St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies

Justin had no real theory of divine immanence to complement his emphasis on divine transcendence. His doctrine of the logos, which we have just discussed, in fact kept the supreme Deity at a safe distance from intercourse with humankind and left the Platonic transcendence in all its bareness. God operated through the logos, who alone bridged the gulf that would otherwise have proved impassable.

In the Apologies Justin does not set forth any real Trinitarian doctrine. But he says he worshiped the Father as supreme in the Universe; he worshiped the logos or Son as divine but in the second place; he worshiped the Holy Spirit in the third place. This is the language of Christian experience and worship rather than of theological reflection. The Holy Spirit was, for Justin, the inspirer of the prophets, the guide of spiritual endeavor, the source of the spiritual gifts in the Church. Justin's experience as a Churchman took precedence over his logic. His philosophical idea of God, deriving from Middle Platonism, was too abstract for any real distinction within the Godhead such as would equate the love betwen the Father and the Son with the Spirit. In fact, the logos largely carries out the functions of the Spirit. Nevertheless, the fact that Justin has so much to say about the Spirit and refers to the traditional triadic formulas of the Church shows how strongly he was influenced by Christian worship as he had known it.

© source where applicable

Another thing. The Jews before Christ believed in the Father and his Spirit . . . yet most people don't call them binitarians. Why not?

Well, I would call them Trinitarians, as they believed in His Word/Wisdom as well as His Spirit. There is clear evidence of this in the OT as well (St Justin points out the Angel of the LORD in the OT), and even clearer in the writings of Philo and of the translators of the Aramaic Targums (who were Jewish).

It was not until after the coming of Christ and the schism between those who followed Him and those who didn't that there appeared a strictly non-Trinitarian Jewish sect.

So my main questions are:
- Would you consider anyone who believes in Christ's full divinity and coeternality with the Father, as well as his full humanity, a trinitarian?

Provided that they also believe that Christ and the Father (and the Spirit) are one in essence, then yes. But to be an Orthodox Trinitarian, one needs to believe that the Father is the principle, and the Son is begotten of God the Father, and not the other way around. Likewise, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and not the other way around.

What if their view of the Holy Spirit was exactly that of modern or ancient Judaism?

Of ancient Judaism - yes. Of modern - no.

- If not, how important is the Trinity, really? (Note that I'm not arguing that trinitarianism is wrong, so please don't send me to the looney bin Unorthodox Theology 201!)

The Trinity is at the heart of true Christian worship. (Go to an Orthodox divine liturgy, and count the number of times the three persons of the Trinity are mentioned together... )

Also, if anyone has any thoughts on how all this ties in with the traditional creeds, I'd be glad to hear them.

Included above.

I'm afraid I don't really understand the creeds myself; what do words like "begotten" and "proceeding" actually mean, anyway?

I wouldn't bother to much with trying to understand exactly what these words mean. Much greater theologians than you and me have failed to understand it :

St Gregory the Theologian of Nazianzus

You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God.

© source where applicable

St John of Damascus

We have learned that there is a difference between begetting and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.

© source where applicable

[spitndirt]

Ok.....instead of poking fun I will throw in my two cents.

Presupposition: Prior to creation (in eternity past) God is that God is. We know from the scriptures that this God is Immortal Spirit. These can be said of God without creation in mind.

My view (which is in conformity with the strictest reading of scripture) is that the Son of God was manifested in '...the fulness of time...'. Therefore, in the fulness of time pre-creation Immortal Spirit became 'the Father'......hence, the scripture where God says to Jesus, the literal man, '...you are my Son, today I have begotten thee...'.

So....if we apply this to the above drawing the Holy Spirit would represent pre-creation God who became a /the Father when He 'begat' a Son. This would render the Holy Spirit and the Father as One and the same.

The Son, then, was a man in whom the Father (Holy Spirit / Spirit of Truth) dwelt bodily. Jesus testified to as much in the latter chapters of John's Gospel.

Further, true God (the Father who is Holy and Spirit) exalted this begotten Son (the man Jesus) to the very right hand of His own power and majesty. True God said to His exalted Son (the man Jesus) '...thy throne O God....etc.'.

Conclusion: since the true Son - the one and only Son - is a man He cannot be true God. Therefore, the risen Jesus is proxy God until such a time (the end) when He hands the kingdom to the Father when it is said '...God will be all and in all...'. Note here that God will be IN ALL. Question: does this mean that ALL will be God? Certainly not. God is He who will be in all. In this same way true God (the Father who is Holy and Spirit) dwelt bodily in the man Jesus - the one and only Son.

Where you all are trying to see three there are only two in reality. And only one of these existed eternally prior to creation.

According to this view the term 'proceeds' makes perfect sense. Light is eternal but has not for eternity shone in darkness.....nor has Life for eternity animated flesh. What you all are mistaking for 'three distincts' coexisting eternally is really a progression of One distinct into another distinct and through the second into a myriad of other distincts (us who believe). We posses the very same Spirit that dwelt in our Lord and Christ. This Spirit is the very Spirit of the one true and Immortal God. The Son of God - Jesus, the Christ - was mortal, hence He died on a cross.

So... the man Jesus (one and only true Son) is shown to be 'not true God' on two counts. 1) He was a man, and 2) He was a mortal.

The man Jesus is not God....rather, God is God in the man Jesus. By virtue of this reality Jesus is indeed 'Proxy God'.....and this just for a span.

peace