The distinct persons of the Trinity

[Lamb]

http://www.triunegod.net/papers/triune_god.php

"The three Persons of the one Godhead, while being equal as to their one substance, are distinct as to how they relate to one another. The Father, whose deity is derived from no one, eternally begets the Son, not the Son the Father. The Son is eternally begotten by Father, not the Father by the Son (Psalm 2:7). Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, not the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit (John 15:26; Galatians 4:6). As the adverb “eternally” indicates, the inner-Trinitarian relations between the three Persons are not subject to change, because in God there is no change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). "

"The one true God has created the world. Yet all three Persons of the one Godhead have been involved in this work in their specific way (Genesis 1:1-3; Psalm 33:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the one God redeemed the world. Again, all three Person of the Godhead were involved in this work in their specific way (Isaiah 63:16; John 3:16; 1 John 4:14; Luke 1:35). Finally, the one God sanctifies the world. All three persons of the Trinity do this in their particular way and office (Jude 1; Hebrews 10:29; 1 Peter 1:2). "

 

[JRT]

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

 

[atpollard]

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

“That’s modalism, Patrick!”

 

[atpollard]

[Luk 3:21-22 NASB] 21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

All three ... Father, Son and Spirit ... present at the same time.

Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.

Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.

So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
​

 

[Andrew]

“That’s modalism, Patrick!”

LOL!
But I also concur that "peoples" in the English language just doesn't seem to fit all that well. I was thinking the same earlier, I was like "persona" sounds better, but then my head started to spin again so.. lol
It's definitely our human version of understanding the Godhead trinity but it's still just too awesome to explain, we get the jist of it at least, 3 in unity and beyond mathematics

 

[Andrew]

[Luk 3:21-22 NASB] 21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

All three ... Father, Son and Spirit ... present at the same time.

Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.

Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.

So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
​

Well why didn't you just say all that in the first place Patrick?

 

[Lamb]

[Luk 3:21-22 NASB] 21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

All three ... Father, Son and Spirit ... present at the same time.

Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.

Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.

So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
​

YES! All three present always but yet we attribute different roles to each person of the Godhead as the bible does too. We always say that Jesus died on the cross, don't we? So we see that there are primary roles for each although He is one.

 

[Josiah]

we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.



Yup. It's just true.

Nope. It defies logic and there is NO physical example because God isn't physical and isn't a part of physics.

It's MYSTERY.

And like virtually all of Christianity, it's not true because we understand it or can wrap our puny, fallen, limit, human brains around it but because it's true.

"Humility is the foundation of all sound theology."




.

 

[Lamb]

I'm not trying to turn this into a is God Triune topic.

I'm leaning more toward the distinctions that we see in the bible about each person of the Godhead.

God the Father created the world (yes, we are aware that the Son & Spirit were not separated from Him even then) and Jesus the Son was baptized in the river Jordan (yes, God the Father and the Holy Spirit were both present) and the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost (yes, both the Son and Father were present and not separated). I know that we have ONE GOD. Yet, we do see each of the persons of Godhead having specific roles in scripture. That's where I'm trying to get this thread going.

 

[hedrick]

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona".

It’s the Latin “persona” that refer to a mask. But most of the theology was done in Greek. Hypostasis doesn’t mean a mask. It’s a term that you might translate as “entity,” although I think it’s pretty clear that it took on a new meaning in the context of the Trinity.

Whether “roles” (i.e. masks) is orthodox or not depends upon how you mean it. If you mean that the roles describe different ways in which God works with us, then this is modalism, and is not orthodox.

But there’s another way to understand role that I think is at least mostly orthodox, although I don’t believe this was actually used in the early church discussions. If Jesus truly shows us God, this has an implication for God’s nature. A completely transcendent God such as the Muslim one can’t take on suffering and death. One way to look at the Trinity is as the statement that God has within his own nature and experience the roles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This isn’t modalism because these roles are inherent to God, and not just ways that he shows himself.

This is consistent with the way many modern theologians would understand the Trinity. Modern theology tends to look at both the Trinity and Incarnation in terms of role and function, while the early Christian discussions were in terms of ontology.

But it’s not so clear that the early Christians would find it acceptable. One of the big problems with modalism was that by saying that God is just one, it ended up with the Father suffering. That was unacceptable to them because of the strong commitment to impassibility. Indeed one name for the heresy of modalism is “patripassianism” (that the Father suffered). The Trinity provided enough separation between Father and Son that it was only the Son that suffered. It’s not so clear that a separation of role or function, even if it’s inherent to God and not just his dealings with us, would provide enough distinction to satisfy the folks who objected to the idea that the Father suffered, even if only through being incarnated in Jesus. Of course I disagree with the whole idea that we need to protect the Father from suffering.

 

[hedrick]

I've been reviewing the development of the Trinity. This is a summary of John Anthony McGuckin's section of "The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity."

In the earliest fathers, the focus is on God’s actions. In Clement, “The Lord Jesus, who is the scepter of God’s own majesty …” (p 61) His thought is in agreement with modern understanding of how the Wisdom tradition behind John’s Logos worked. Wisdom was a way of speaking about God’s presence with his people. But its ontological status (i.e. whether it was an actual separate thing) wasn’t the point. We might regard it as an extended metaphor, but that’s also an answer to an ontological question that is itself anachronistic.

In the second century Apologists, encounter with Greek thought starts moving ideas in the direction of the Greek Logos.

“If God is by definition transcendent, how can anything external be related to him? … According to the Apologists, the world, strictly speaking, is not a work of the Father, but of the Logos. … The Logos is reflection, an image, of the deity. .. “within God” .. and as such worthy of worship…” (p 67)

In Irenaeus, the Logos is “aspects of God’s own being .. it is the same God existing in different modalities of relation.”

In the third century, this becomes formulated as three entities that are more or less parallel, particularly in Origen. “Using the word hypostasis in the antique sense of “single concrete being” … Origen [says] “There are three hypostases…”” There are specifics in which he differs from later theology, but he’s the real start. (p 70)

Note however that Augustine interprets the persons as relational. That is, the only distinction between the persons is that Father and Son are the two endpoints of the relationship of love. in my opinion this moves the Trinity back in the direction of Irenaeus. This has been the default understanding of the Trinity in the West. It's close to the concept I suggested in my previous posting.

But while I think you can give good justification for it, for reasons I gave in the previous postings, I believe it's really the earliest fathers, before the Apologists, who are closer to John's theology. If you want to explore that, there's a detailed look at the early Jewish ideas about Wisdom in Alice Sinnott's book "the Personification of Wisdom." As far as I know, the Synoptics' (and Paul's) theology wasn't retained in the Church at all. There's an interesting book by J R Daniel Kirk, "A Man Attested by God" that looks at the Synoptics. He concludes that in early Judaism there was a pattern of referring to human figures such as Adam or Moses as sharing the power and function of God while remaining human. He thinks this is the idea in the Synoptics. (He doesn't say so, but I think this also applies to Paul.) He was fired from Fuller for this (and a couple of paragraphs in a book about Paul suggesting a possibility that the Church might come to accept gays). But I think he makes a really good case.

 

[Lamb]

I've been reviewing the development of the Trinity. This is a summary of John Anthony McGuckin's section of "The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity."

In the earliest fathers, the focus is on God’s actions. In Clement, “The Lord Jesus, who is the scepter of God’s own majesty …” (p 61) His thought is in agreement with modern understanding of how the Wisdom tradition behind John’s Logos worked. Wisdom was a way of speaking about God’s presence with his people. But its ontological status (i.e. whether it was an actual separate thing) wasn’t the point. We might regard it as an extended metaphor, but that’s also an answer to an ontological question that is itself anachronistic.

In the second century Apologists, encounter with Greek thought starts moving ideas in the direction of the Greek Logos.

“If God is by definition transcendent, how can anything external be related to him? … According to the Apologists, the world, strictly speaking, is not a work of the Father, but of the Logos. … The Logos is reflection, an image, of the deity. .. “within God” .. and as such worthy of worship…” (p 67)

In Irenaeus, the Logos is “aspects of God’s own being .. it is the same God existing in different modalities of relation.”

In the third century, this becomes formulated as three entities that are more or less parallel, particularly in Origen. “Using the word hypostasis in the antique sense of “single concrete being” … Origen [says] “There are three hypostases…”” There are specifics in which he differs from later theology, but he’s the real start. (p 70)

Note however that Augustine interprets the persons as relational. That is, the only distinction between the persons is that Father and Son are the two endpoints of the relationship of love. in my opinion this moves the Trinity back in the direction of Irenaeus. This has been the default understanding of the Trinity in the West. It's close to the concept I suggested in my previous posting.

But while I think you can give good justification for it, for reasons I gave in the previous postings, I believe it's really the earliest fathers, before the Apologists, who are closer to John's theology. If you want to explore that, there's a detailed look at the early Jewish ideas about Wisdom in Alice Sinnott's book "the Personification of Wisdom." As far as I know, the Synoptics' (and Paul's) theology wasn't retained in the Church at all. There's an interesting book by J R Daniel Kirk, "A Man Attested by God" that looks at the Synoptics. He concludes that in early Judaism there was a pattern of referring to human figures such as Adam or Moses as sharing the power and function of God while remaining human. He thinks this is the idea in the Synoptics. (He doesn't say so, but I think this also applies to Paul.) He was fired from Fuller for this (and a couple of paragraphs in a book about Paul suggesting a possibility that the Church might come to accept gays). But I think he makes a really good case.

Good research!

 

[JRT]

So only the Son suffered. But the Father did not suffer because the Son suffered? This would imply that the Father did not suffer because either the Father was superior to the Son or didn't care about the Son or that the Trinity is an entirely human construct. Yes, I am a modalist because in this case it is the only way I can maintain my spiritual and intellectual integrity.

 

[hedrick]

The best treatment I’ve been able to find about patristic patripassianism online is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312115561_Patripassianism_and_the_impassibility_of_God.i

Remember that we don't have writings of the advocates of patripassianism. We know them only from their opponents, and those are almost certainly unreliable.

Apparently Praexus, the main patripassian we know about, used “Father” for God as a whole, and Son for what we would call the human nature. (Of course the NT normally also uses Father for God as a whole.) The son suffered. However even Praexus didn’t think the Father could suffer. He did say, however, that the Father experienced compassion. While his views are a bit hard to decipher from the abusive references, it appears that Callistus was similar. I.e. even the patripassians agreed that God can’t suffer, but believed that he had compassion for Christ's human suffering.

Praxis’ opponent, Tertulian, said that this doesn’t help. Compassion is still a kind of suffering. So even though Praexus said the Father didn't suffer, Tertullian says his views still implied that the Father suffered. And it's Tertullian's accusation, not Praexus' intent, that came down to us.

Classical theology appears to have accepted the claim that compassion implies suffering.

So how can the atonement work if only the human nature suffered?

The orthodox solution (at least according to the paper I cited) is that neither Father nor Son can suffer in their divine nature. Only the human nature can by nature suffer. However because of the communication of attributes, the properties of each nature can be attributed to the other. So the Son can in this sense be said to suffer. The Father cannot, since the communication of attributes happens because the two natures share one person, and the person of the Father doesn’t have a human nature. The question is whether this is actually a solution. Isn’t this very close to saying that God can’t suffer in himself, but can by compassion with the humanity? I.e. it is any different from Praexus except in terminology? Does this solve the problem by anything more than smoke and mirrors?

Many, and perhaps even most, modern theologians simply reject impassibility, at least to the extent of compassion, saying that God suffers when his people suffer, and that God suffered in his human form. This needn't imply modalism, although the whole modalism issue is a bit hard to apply to modern theology, since it tends to think in terms of function and role rather than ontology. (Unless of course you think that tendency is by definition modalist.)

There are modern defenses of impassibility, e.g. https://mereorthodoxy.com/beauty-impassible-god-god-emotional-teenager/. Basically the claim is that impassibility doesn't make God unfeeling, it just defends him against the idea that emotion can overtake him in an uncontrolled way. It's an interesting defense, but if that was actually what traditional theology meant, why go to all that trouble to defend the Father from suffering? Why not just say that God suffered with Jesus, but in the appropriate divine way?

One observation that should be made is that there's been a lot of work in the last 50 years on the theology behind the NT. I'm not aware of any NT scholar that uses the concept of Trinity in these discussions. The orthodox ones will say that the Trinity developed later, and is a legitimate development. But few would accept the kinds of NT proof texts often cited by those trying to claim that the Trinity is mandated by Scripture.

 

[FredVB]

With scriptures there are for it, there is certainty that God is one Being. This is the Supreme Being, just one being. The heavenly Father, Jesus Christ the incarnation of Logos the Word with God who is God, and the holy Spirit of God the Paraclete are each this one being God, Yahweh. Scriptures which determine there is no god but the one being who is God are not violated. Though there is relationship and communion between these revealed to us as the heavenly Father, Logos, and Paraclete the Spirit, they are fully in union as the one being God. When the atonement was accomplished with Christ suffering for us in the sacrifice for us, it was not with the heavenly Father not suffering at all. Christ felt the separation then, it was a tear in the union of the eternal one being God.

 

[JRT]

Holy Trinity is not a description of God, but a description of a human experience of God. The Holy Trinity is a doctrine, adopted by the Christian Church in the 4th century CE, as a way of processing and understanding their experience with God. It is a product of dualistic Greek thinking which separated God from humanity; the holy from the profane; the flesh from the spirit, and the body from the soul. That was a cultural mindset and no one in that era of history knew how to step outside that frame of reference. However, that frame of reference died in that period of history we call the Enlightenment, leaving modern Christians with the impossible task of fitting a 4th century doctrine into a 21st century world view out of which it does not come and to which it cannot speak. Does that mean that the Trinitarian experience is wrong? No, I don’t think it means that, but it does mean that the Trinitarian language, which we use as we to seek to relate the Trinitarian experience is simply irrelevant.

~~~ John Spong

 

[MennoSota]

"Let US make man in OUR image."

 

[Andrew]

"Let US make man in OUR image."

Unitarians be like..
".. and once God was baptised God landed on Gods shoulders and God spoke out from Heaven to God saying "this is my God"..."