Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question about the Trinity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question about the Trinity

    The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one being called God who exists as three persons. In order to avoid a contradiction, the definition of the word "being" would have to be different from the definition of the word "person." What would be the difference between a being and a person?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
    The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one being called God who exists as three persons. In order to avoid a contradiction, the definition of the word "being" would have to be different from the definition of the word "person." What would be the difference between a being and a person?
    According to the Cappadocian fathers (Basil the Great), a divine person is a mode of being of the divine substance. The divine persons are diverse according to substantial relation, and origin, but united in substance with the one being. Each divine person has -

    1) the same divine being according to the mode of essence, but

    2) a diverse mode of divine being according to the mode of person.

    The diverse modes of being do not conclude to diverse species of being, like a cat and a dog that are really diverse substances. The diversity of modes of being within God is a real diversity, and in which includes the unity of being in both the three divine persons and the one divine essence.

    How is this so in God? We simply do not know. As the Cappadocian fathers taught, we know what God has revealed about Himself as a Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but we know God has not revealed the interior machinations of how the mystery exists within God. We can deduce that the Father generates the Son, but we don't really know what divine generation is, other than through comparison with the generation of living, created substances and the generation of ideas. So too, the divine spiration of the Holy Spirit is not understood in itself, with only some analogous comparison being made with an act of creatures love performed by the will, which has an inclination towards the thing loved.

    These creaturely examples give us only tenuous insight into how generation and spiration occur in God.

    JM

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
      According to the Cappadocian fathers (Basil the Great), a divine person is a mode of being of the divine substance. The divine persons are diverse according to substantial relation, and origin, but united in substance with the one being. Each divine person has -

      1) the same divine being according to the mode of essence, but

      2) a diverse mode of divine being according to the mode of person.


      JM
      You realize that modalism is a heresy, right?

      Comment


      • #4
        Right! The Trinity is not like Bruce Wayne changing to be Batman! That would be stupid!
        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          According to the Cappadocian fathers (Basil the Great), a divine person is a mode of being of the divine substance. The divine persons are diverse according to substantial relation, and origin, but united in substance with the one being. Each divine person has -

          1) the same divine being according to the mode of essence, but

          2) a diverse mode of divine being according to the mode of person.

          The diverse modes of being do not conclude to diverse species of being, like a cat and a dog that are really diverse substances. The diversity of modes of being within God is a real diversity, and in which includes the unity of being in both the three divine persons and the one divine essence.

          How is this so in God? We simply do not know. As the Cappadocian fathers taught, we know what God has revealed about Himself as a Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but we know God has not revealed the interior machinations of how the mystery exists within God. We can deduce that the Father generates the Son, but we don't really know what divine generation is, other than through comparison with the generation of living, created substances and the generation of ideas. So too, the divine spiration of the Holy Spirit is not understood in itself, with only some analogous comparison being made with an act of creatures love performed by the will, which has an inclination towards the thing loved.

          These creaturely examples give us only tenuous insight into how generation and spiration occur in God.

          JM
          Are you saying that God is a single person who manifests Himself in different ways or forms?

          Comment


          • #6
            Ok, so does anyone have an answer to the OP that does not immediately garner the "heresy" label?
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • #7
              I’ve just had a discussion about modalism in another context. The actual theology during the time when it was defined was a mess, so it’s a bit hard to translate it into current terms. But as I understand it, modalism denies any real distinction between the persons. Indeed many modalists aren’t trinitarian at all. If Schaff is right, for Sabellius, Father, Son and Holy Spirit were temporary, different ways in which God acted in the world at different times.

              The use of the word “mode” doesn’t make someone a modalist, as long as it’s being used to describe a personal distinction in God.

              The West (I can’t speak for the east) sees God as primarily one. The persons represent relations, the Father as the source, the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeding. In all respects other than that, God is one. Aquinas defines the persons pretty precisely, I think, though the argument is a bit subtle. http://newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm.

              Here's what I understand him to be saying: Aquinas defines a person as “a subsistent individual of a rational nature.” Hypostasis is more general, as it is not necessarily rational. 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.

              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, God doesn't have flesh, so he is individuated in a different way. 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.

              At least this is what I get from him, given that some of his metaphysical statements don’t make much sense to me.

              Note that modern theology retains the Trinity, but typically not the definition in terms of person and substance. If Jesus really shows us God, then God is not just the Father, but the obedient Son. So I think Christianity has to have an idea of God that's not just a monad. Whether the Trinity is the best way of expressing that is a legitimate question, but something like it is going to need to be in our theology.
              Last edited by hedrick; 05-27-2016, 06:54 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                You realize that modalism is a heresy, right?
                Modalism (Sebalianism) says there are three modes of the one person in God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are said to be three modes of the one person, which is manifested in creation. At the end of creation, the three modes will return back to the one person again. The Cappadocian fathers spoke of three real persons within the Trinity distinct according to -

                1) origin.

                2) relation.

                3) and mode of being.

                The Cappadocians may have used the word, mode, but they did so in a sense different to that of modalism. Modalism is unitarian, whereas the Cappadocians were Trinitarian.

                JM

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                  Ok, so does anyone have an answer to the OP that does not immediately garner the "heresy" label?
                  Question - What would be the difference between a being and a person?

                  Answer - being in God is the divine nature. God is being. A person is understood diversely as -

                  1) a hypostases or supposit of rational nature. A hypostases is a concrete thing, for example a a chair existing in the real is a concrete thing. Likewise a person is a concrete thing existing in the real, and therefore a hypostases. A person is also different from a chair for a person is rational, and thereby has the spiritual powers of intellect and will. A person is then a concrete thing, existing in the real, with an intellect and will.

                  If this definition is transferred to the notion of a divine person, each person is then a concrete thing with an intellect and a will. Yet in God, there is only one intellect and one will, for God is not composed of parts, nor has accidental perfections. A divine person is also a hypostases or supposit as a concrete thing. Such means the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three, concrete things that exist in the real. Each concrete thing existing in the real is really distinct from the other. The Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit and so on. The Father is then a concrete thing with an intellect and will. This definition does tell us something of the nature of a divine person, but the definition is lacking according to the manner in which 1) the Father's personhood is not that of the Son and Holy Spirit, and 2) the Father's intellect and will is identical to that of the Son and Holy Spirit. Likewise for the Son and Holy Spirit.

                  2) that which is incommunicable. A person owns everything which it has. For example Peter owns his arms, legs, eye, heart, thoughts, willing and actions. Each of these parts can be communicated to another. Such as an idea. Peter can have an idea, which is known to him and is therefore Peter's idea. Peter can then also express the idea to another and thereby communicates the idea to another. Likewise Peter can give every other part of himself to another. For example, Peter can give all of his actions to another as to an employer.

                  However, there is something Peter cannot communicate, or give to another. That which cannot be communicated to another is Peter's person. Peter is the name we give to the person, which is that that cannot be given to another. When Peter gives, it is Peter, and not another person that gives. Peter then cannot give something of himself that is Peter, for there is not person, prior to the person of Peter, by which Peter can be given to anther. Peter, then is the name given to the personhood of the rational substance, which is fundamentally incommunicable.

                  When applied to God, the divine person is that which cannot be communicated to another within God. The Fathers, intellect, will, being, and life are all communicated to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet the Father as a person, cannot communicate His own distinct personhood to another divine person. For the Father is, and always will be a distinct, incommunicable being, other than the Son and the Holy Spirit. Like wise for the Son and the Holy Spirit.

                  3) the first subject of attribution. The first subject is that subject which is before all others. A second subject is that which depends upon the first subject as a first. For example, my hand is the subject of my fingers. My fingers are dependent upon my hand as a third subject is dependent upon a second subject. The hand is then in turn dependent upon the first subject, which is the owner of all other subjects. The first subject, is the person that owns all the attributes of the man, called Peter. Peter has hands, legs and arms and habits, which are all owned by Peter. All these things are known as attributes. Therefore Peter, is the first subject of attribution, and is therefore the human person, who owns all of the attributes.

                  When applied to God, the F/S/HS all own the divine attributes. The divine persons who own the divine attributes are the first subjects of attribution. Therefore in God, there are three, first subjects of attribution.

                  4) Substantial relation. There is no examples in creation of a substantial relation. We do however have examples of accidental relation. Predicamental relation occurs when a substance has an accidental being towards another, whereby that relational (accidental) being is not the natural power of the substance. For example a Father has an accidental relation to the Son. The Father as man, is naturally a rational animal, and is not thereby naturally a Father. This means, man as the nature of man, is rational animal, and man as man is not from the nature of man, a father. In this way, fatherhood, motherhood, sonship and daughterhood are all accidental to the nature of man, and are thereby predicated of man. For example, Peter is a father, Jane is a mother. Both the predicates of father and mother indicate they are accidental to the nature of man.

                  Transcendental relation occurs when there is a relation within a thing that is ordered to act towards another, from the nature of a thing. For example, the eye is an organ of sight and is thereby from the nature of eye, ordered towards another thing - illuminated colour. Similarly, the other senses are also ordered towards another, and thereby are transcendentally related to another, as to an object.

                  In God there are no accidents. Therefore in God, there is neither predicamental, nor transcendental relation. All in God is substance. Yet in God it has been revealed that there is opposition and therefore relation. Each relation in God is not accidental, but substantial. Therefore in God, there are three persons, whereby each person is defined as a substantial relation. The F is a substantial relation to the Son. The Son is a substantial relation to the Father, etc. There are four relations in God of F->S, S->F, F&S->HS, and HS->F&S. Each relation, of F/S/HS indicates a divine person as a being towards another.

                  Now as to the question of What would be the difference between a being and a person? The differences are according to manner of defining person within God.

                  1) a hypostases or supposit of rational nature. A divine person is a hypostases. The divine being is the being had in common with the three divine hypostases.

                  2) that which is incommunicable. A divine person is that which is incommunicable. The divine being is that being which is communicated to each of the divine persons.

                  3) the first subject of attribution. A divine person is that first subject of the divine attributes. The divine being is owned by three divine, first subjects of the F/S and HS.

                  4) Substantial relation. A divine person is a substantial being towards another. The divine being of each person is not had as a being towards another, but as being had is common. The divine person is then a mode of being, particular to each person, whereby the divine being had in common is being had as essence.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think the original poster's definition is wrong, and God is not one "being."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                      I think the original poster's definition is wrong, and God is not one "being."
                      God is one being, but the one being is had in diverse modes in the three persons. As Christians we cannot say God is not one being. God is being and God is three persons, who are three modes of the one, essential being. God is then according to person, three modes of being, but according to essence, one being. A mode does not indicate a really distinct being had apart from that being. For example, a piece of string may be had according to different modes of straight and curved. The string is the same, but the manner by which the string exists is modally different. For the string to be really distinct, the string would have to be distinct to the chair, or table. The string is not the chair or table, but the string. So too the straight and bent piece of the same string, are modes of the same string. Hence the modes of string do not mean the bent string is really distinct from the straight string.

                      Analogously, the three divine persons and the divine essence are not really distinct from each other. The divine person is not another thing, distinct from the divine essence, like the table or chair are distinct from the string. In God, all the divine persons and the divine essence are one, but had in different modes, and are therefore distinct by modes of being. God is being. F, S and HS are three beings, modally different to the one essence of God, which is being.

                      The difficulty in understanding this manner of understanding God, is the modes of the string are accidental, but the modes in God are substantial. We creatures only know of accidental modes of existence, such as the modes of string. Hence, we do not know by experience of any substantial modes of existence. To then say God is three and one according to modes of being, cannot be understood in itself, but only according to analogy from the experience of accidental modes had in creation.

                      To understand modes of being in God by analogy from creatures only provides some assistance in removing any allegation of contradiction in God. The modes of being in God are simply not knowable in themselves to man. We cannot know what the diverse modes of being in God really are essentially in God, for the distinction made in God according to modes of being is wrapped up in the supernatural mystery of God as both one and three. Therefore when we arrive at the conclusion, along with Basil the Great, that the distinctions of person and nature in God are according to mode, we do so, knowing that we have only obtained some insight into what has been revealed by God, without ever directly knowing the nature of God, nor how God is both three and one.

                      I could tell you how a car works, then you would both know what a car is and how it works. God has told mankind what He is as both one and three, but not how both one and three work out in the inner life of God. Such an explanation would consist in God explaining the transcendent life to a creature, which is a life that only God, who alone has a supernatural mind, can fully comprehend. Evidently God cannot explain such a reality to creatures, whereby the creature comes to know that reality in God, which is naturally above a creatures comprehension. Only in heaven, when the saints see the divine nature face to face in the beatific vision, whereby the mind of a creature is raised to the supernatural life of God, will the creature know the inner workings of the divine life. So too, God has revealed the Trinitarian life of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In doing so, He has shown man there is a life in God had properly in God alone. Yet man simply cannot fully comprehend in this life, what this inner life of God really is.

                      Part of the mystery of revelation is God has revealed some truths to man, without revealing the full nature of those truths. For example, God has revealed the Word became flesh, but He has not revealed how this mystery was caused. Likewise God has revealed that man is justified by a free act of grace, yet the nature of grace is not fully understood by men in this life. Similarly, we know of the one and three in God, but we cannot fully comprehend in this life, what that means.

                      God is one and God is three. God is a Trinity, understood in this life by faith, and in the next life by vision.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
                        The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one being called God who exists as three persons. In order to avoid a contradiction, the definition of the word "being" would have to be different from the definition of the word "person." What would be the difference between a being and a person?
                        The short answer no. God is one being. Persons are beings. God is referred to as one person. God is also known by three persons who are not the same persons but are the very same God. In this latter statement there is a distinction between God and personhood. Three divine persons who are the one and the same God.

                        God being one being without parts or division: ". . . The LORD our God [is] one LORD: . . ." -- Deuteronomy 6:4.

                        That being said, the Hebrew translated "one" can refer to a group or a set (Genesis 2:24, "one flesh"; Numbers 13:23, "one cluster of grapes").

                        In the NT God the Father (one person) (1 Corinthians 8:6).

                        Christ being understood to be called God (Ephesians 5:5, Darby Translation).
                        There are other examples (John 1:1,3, 10, 14; Hebrews 1:8).

                        That Christ, in the incarnation, being both fully human and remaining fully God (John 20:28).

                        The Holy Spirit being referred to as God (Acts 5:3-4).

                        There are far more references and arguments that require the Trinity explanation and Christ being one person with two distinct natures.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          When speaking of God, it’s difficult to know what one being means. In normal language a being is someone you interact with as a single entity. It has its own will, its own consciousness, and thus is a single actor and a single communicator.

                          I would argue that from this normal-language point of view, God is pretty much a single being. All actions involve all three persons, so there’s only one set of actions. There’s only one will, and (though classical theology didn’t quite say this) one consciousness. The only issue would be whether God is a single communicator. I believe that he is, although we may see communication as involving one of the persons more directly.

                          Whether he is a single being in the theological sense depends upon just how you translate being into theological language. Both ousia and hypostasis were, before being adapted for theological use, ways of talking about being. However I think ousia is more likely to be translated that way today, and thus that God is normally spoken of as one being in three persons.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A more delicate question is whether Christ is one or two beings. As Christology was finally formulated, Christ has a separate human will with separate human actions. In a common-language sense I think it’s clear that Jesus is a human being. However I’m not aware of classical theology speaking of Christ as two beings. I think it could be justified.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              As usual, I find this whole discussion only reaffirms my conviction that human language is inadequate to meaningfully characterize the details of the Trinity and the Incarnation (which two doctrines are, IMO, inextricably linked).
                              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                              Beige Federalist.

                              Nationalist Christian.

                              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                              Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                              Justice for Matthew Perna!

                              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X