Question about the Trinity

[Sparko]

I think that this part of your argument is sort of begging the question, about the importance of the term "being," and about the particulars of what it means to be separate gods.

Admittedly, saying "I am [Jesus]" (assuming that the "he" in Isaiah 43 is referring to the Servant) does express a great deal of unity. However, Trinitarians typically reject the formulation that the Father is the same as the Son. (Also, I guess it could be argued that it is the Word speaking in Isaiah 43, rather than the Father.) In practical terms, if God is one being, then what does that even mean? If there are three persons then I would take that to mean three centers of consciousness, which sounds to me like three beings.

Don't the Hindus claim that all their thousands of gods are somehow actually one being?

How many Gods are there? One.

How many distinct persons are fully that one God? three. (each isn't 1/3 of God)

You are confusing "being" with "person" - just drop that word and say one God, three persons.

In the old testament, basically YHWH was the triune God speaking as one individual. Sometimes it was the Father speaking, sometimes the Son. I like to just think of all three persons speaking as one. In the NT there is a more clear delineation of the persons. Yet the bible is very clear there is only ONE God. Not three Gods.

[hedrick]

In practical terms, if God is one being, then what does that even mean? If there are three persons then I would take that to mean three centers of consciousness, which sounds to me like three beings.

I agree that when I hear “three persons” I would assume three consciousnesses. But “person” is being used as a technical term. How the Trinity developed is complex, so it may be that not everyone using that term meant the same thing. But a single concept did develop, and at least in the West I think it’s pretty clear that it’s a single consciousness. The Catholic Encyclopedia dates to the early 20th Cent. It represents a standard view, highly influenced by folks such as Aquinas. It speaks of the Trinity as having a single three-fold consciousness. It’s also quite clear that the standard model says that the Trinity has a single will. Not just in the sense that the wills of all three persons agree, but a single will.

For Aquinas, the Trinity has just one of all the attributes one normally thinks of as constituting a person except for relation. That is, the only thing that distinguishes the three persons is that the Father is the origin, the Son is begotten by him and the Spirit proceeds. But other things such as will, etc, are all single.

Now you may well say that if there’s one will and one consciousness, there’s one person by definition. Aquinas argues that the way you distinguish things depends upon the kind of thing it is. With normal people, persons are distinguished by having separate bodies, etc. But God is a different kind of thing, who doesn’t have a body. So it’s not surprising that with him three persons are distinguished differently. He argues that they are distinguished by relation only.

I’m pretty convinced that his concept is well-defined and consistent. Whether it’s a sensible way to describe God, or even what people meant by Trinity in the 4th Cent, is another thing, but I think it’s the standard definition of the Trinity for the West.

It certainly deals with the criticism that the Trinity is really three gods. With a single being, a single consciousness and a single will, the only issue would be whether it’s gone so far in the direction of unity that it’s no longer a Trinity.

My own approach is more from Biblical theology than this kind of metaphysics. I think the Bible teaches a God who is pretty strongly one. I do think one can argue that there has to be some complexity within him, or having Christ as his image per Col 1:15 wouldn’t make sense. For Christ to be his image, the suffering servant has to show us something about God. To me that says that there’s something consistent with the Son in him as well as the creator, law-giver, etc. I might not have invented the Trinity as it finally came about, or used a term like "person" to describe it, but I think it indicates the right kind of distinction to be consistent with Col 1:15, etc.

[Obsidian]

(each isn't 1/3 of God)

I think it's problematic to say that each one isn't one third of God. Indeed, they are all one third. Otherwise, two of the three would be superfluous, the Father would equal the Son, etc. They're not all the same.

[Obsidian]

But a single concept did develop, and at least in the West I think it’s pretty clear that it’s a single consciousness. The Catholic Encyclopedia dates to the early 20th Cent. It represents a standard view, highly influenced by folks such as Aquinas. It speaks of the Trinity as having a single three-fold consciousness. It’s also quite clear that the standard model says that the Trinity has a single will. Not just in the sense that the wills of all three persons agree, but a single will.

Imo, the Bible pretty clearly portrays them as having separate minds.

[hedrick]

Imo, the Bible pretty clearly portrays them as having separate minds.

You sure you aren't referring to Jesus? This was just the Trinity, including the eternal Logos.

But the Incarnation adds another piece. Standard theology says he has a separate human will. I don't think classical theology talked about consciousness, but I'd assume a separate human consciousness.

[Obsidian]

Well, I don't agree that Jesus had two minds. That's not in the Bible and I think it sounds completely ridiculous.

[hedrick]

Well, I don't agree that Jesus had two minds. That's not in the Bible and I think it sounds completely ridiculous.

Let’s make sure we’re clear on what we disagree about, if we disagree. I would certainly agree that Jesus has only one mind. But I use Jesus to refer to a human being.

The problem in theology is that this human being is considered to be hypostatically united to the Logos. So Christ is actually the Logos with his humanity. That’s where two comes from. The Logos, being “part” of God, shares in God’s will (and presumably mind). But Jesus obviously has a separate human will, since he talks about obeying God, something that’s difficult for him in the scene at Gethsemane.

If you agree with me that Jesus obviously has a separate human will, then there are two ways one might account for it:

* Jesus and the Logos are the same thing, and have only one will. Jesus submitting to his Father was really the Logos submitting to the Father. This would imply that the Trinity has at least two, and presumably three wills.

* Jesus has a distinct human will and takes distinct human actions. So his human will was submitting to God’s will (which in the standard model of the Trinity, is shared by the entire Trinity).

I think the second is more in tune with the Biblical description, because I think the NT envisions Jesus as an actual human being submitting to God, and I think the whole Bible envisions God as a single actor.

To me the first is tritheism combined with doceticism.

The second is the view of the Trinity we’ve just talked about plus the declaration of the 6th Ecumenical council rejecting the monothelite position.

[Obsidian]

I don't think that Jesus retained any of his divine powers or knowledge when he became a human being, and I don't think there was Jesus the human and then a separate non-human Logos at the same time. It was all one person.

Phillipians 2:5-9 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name[.]

It would not be very humbling if he were both in the form of God and in the likeness of man at the same time, as you imply. He was just in the likeness of man.

John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . . 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

It says that he was made flesh, not that he simply added on flesh to his other attributes.

So I do not believe that there is a Father, Son, plus Jesus, and Holy Spirit. There are only three. Jesus and the Son are the same thing.

[Sparko]

I think it's problematic to say that each one isn't one third of God. Indeed, they are all one third. Otherwise, two of the three would be superfluous, the Father would equal the Son, etc. They're not all the same.

They are three PERSONS, yet each is fully God. 100%. The Father is NOT the Son or the Holy Spirit, yet each is fully GOD. Not partially God.

[37818]

The Trinity is a very complex theological issue, probably one of teh most complex in Christendom. Also, it is important to bear in mind that it is largely extra-biblical I n nature, using terms not at all found in Scripture. Probably the most famous and important of all Trinitarian statements is the Nicene Creed. It states that the Son is of one substance or essence with the Father. This came from the fact that the early church freely incorporated Hellenic substance metaphysics into its formulations. The Creed then resents several problems, aside from the fact it says little about the Deity of teh Spirit. Is saying teh Son is of the same substance as the Father mean that the Son is the Father? Is teh Creed saying here are at least two of, if not three, divine personalities who are all God because they all share a common nature, Deity? What? Some Christians hold with what is called a social model of teh trinity. Accordingly, there are three separate, unique personalities. What they all have in common is the nature of Deity. But three men also have have in common human nature, yet there are still three men. So others feel this view to too close to tritheism or polytheism. The term "person" can be a source of confusion in the Trinity. Originally,, the term "person" meant more of a role than a "person" in our sense of the term. Hence, some believe the Trinity is referring to three roles God plays, such as creator, savior, sustainer. In recent times, substance metaphysics has been abandoned in many theological quarters, and then alternative models of the Trinity have been presented. I realize more needs to be said here. I'm a newbie and want to first make sure I receive notifications of responses to my posts, directly in my mailbox. If so, I will be happy to get back to you with more info.

Then you fail to understand that the "Trinity" is the solution not the problem.

[Bill the Cat]

The Trinity is a very complex theological issue, probably one of teh most complex in Christendom. Also, it is important to bear in mind that it is largely extra-biblical I n nature, using terms not at all found in Scripture. Probably the most famous and important of all Trinitarian statements is the Nicene Creed. It states that the Son is of one substance or essence with the Father. This came from the fact that the early church freely incorporated Hellenic substance metaphysics into its formulations. The Creed then resents several problems, aside from the fact it says little about the Deity of teh Spirit. Is saying teh Son is of the same substance as the Father mean that the Son is the Father? Is teh Creed saying here are at least two of, if not three, divine personalities who are all God because they all share a common nature, Deity? What? Some Christians hold with what is called a social model of teh trinity. Accordingly, there are three separate, unique personalities. What they all have in common is the nature of Deity. But three men also have have in common human nature, yet there are still three men. So others feel this view to too close to tritheism or polytheism. The term "person" can be a source of confusion in the Trinity. Originally,, the term "person" meant more of a role than a "person" in our sense of the term. Hence, some believe the Trinity is referring to three roles God plays, such as creator, savior, sustainer. In recent times, substance metaphysics has been abandoned in many theological quarters, and then alternative models of the Trinity have been presented. I realize more needs to be said here. I'm a newbie and want to first make sure I receive notifications of responses to my posts, directly in my mailbox. If so, I will be happy to get back to you with more info.

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Do you affirm the trinity of God as defined here:

Source: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=theologywebmissionstatement#faq_missiontrinity

There is one living and true God, Creator of all things, eternally existing in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are co-eternal persons, not simply manifestations or aspects of God. We believe that He is Sovereign over all of His creation; that He alone is God, that He is holy, loving, righteous, and just in nature, attributes, and purpose.

© Copyright Original Source

This is a yes/no question that does not require any additional commentary.

***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 publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Sparko]

Then you fail to have paid any attention to anything I said and know little of teh history of the Trinity.

it is "the" not "teh"

Your friendly grammar nazi.

[Obsidian]

I thought that heretics are allowed to post in the Theology subforum anyway.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't follow your question about what I do or do not affirm.

It's a simple inquiry. A yes or no will do.

And yes, it does require further commentary.

No, it really does not.

For example, what do you mean by "person" here" ? If you mean three separate, unique personalities, then I do not agree, as any teaching on the Trinity which affirms three separate subjectivities within the Godhead automatically degenerates into tritheism.

That's all I needed to hear. You deny the Trinity as defined by the classic creeds of the church.

If you are attacking modalism, you need to remember many Christians and theologians are modalists.

No, many HERETICS are modalists.

I also don't follow what you mean by taking issue with this notice.

That means if you do not agree with the moderator notice, then do not do so in this thread. Start a new thread in the padded room, as the notice says.

If you are trying to suggest that anyone posting here must agree with you, because you are some sort of moderator, let me know and I am out here and this site as well.

You aren't real bright, are you? Is English your first language?

I don't have the time of day for that kind of nonsense, especially from someone like who, who has absolutely no real theological education on the Trinity, to start with. So humble up.

If that was English, you need to restate it. If that was owl, please translate into human.

[Bill the Cat]

I thought that heretics are allowed to post in the Theology subforum anyway.

Only with prior mod permission, and only within the orthodox framework of traditional Christianity.