/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>636333

The exact role of the Logos in relation to the Father precisely defined:

In the above quote from Athenagoras, he refers to Christ as the Mind of God, Tertullian explains this is there exact relationship in understandable terms:

"Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind … Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are?" (Against Praxean)

He also explains God being said to be alone:

"Before all things God was alone … He was alone because there was nothing external to him but himself. Yet even then was he not alone, for he had with him that which he possessed in himself—that is to say, his own Reason. … Although God had not yet sent out his Word, he still had him within himself …

I may therefore without rashness establish that even then, before the creation of the universe, God was not alone, since he had within himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, his Word, which he made second to himself by agitating it within Himself."

The Son is not God but may be called God because of His matter:

1 Corinthians 8:6 says: "Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Notice that there is one God the Father, and one Lord the Christ. Tertullian makes this distinction too:

"I shall follow the apostle [Paul], so that if the Father and the Son are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God" and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord." But when Christ alone [is invoked], I shall be able to call him "God." As the same apostle says, "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever" For I should give the name of "sun" even to a sunbeam, considered by itself. But if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I would certainly withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I do not make two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things—and two forms of one undivided substance—as God and his Word, as the Father and the Son."

The rank of the Persons:

The Father is greater than the Word because He has begotten Him, here is a ton of quotes proving that the Church thought this:

"The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as he himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I" Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as he who begets is one, and he who is begotten is another." (Tertullian)

"We reasonably worship him, 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." (Justin Martyr, First Apology)

"For if anyone should ask the reason why the Father, who has fellowship with the Son in all things, has been declared by the Lord alone to know the hour and the day, he will find at present no more suitable, becoming, or safe reason than this: … For "the Father," says he, "is greater than I." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies)

>>636334

>>636333

The exact relationship of the Trinity in the creeds:

First, the Trinity """mystery""" is this: The Athanasian creed in destroying heretics made slight confusion and made it not understandable to us, but looking at first the Nicene creeds then the Athanasian creed we can understand the trinity easily, it's simple:

'The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are made of the same substance so can be called "one," the matter that they are made of is the same as the Father so they CAN be called God. Despite this, they are basically three different people made of the same substance, just like three different humans can all be made of flesh so they can all be called "animal." Three people, one matter, this matter gives them their class name which is "God" but they are three different people.

This is agreed with by Basil:

'The distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear." (Notice how He said it's without confusion and is clear, they understood the Trinity).

The Trinity is merely three people made of one type of substance, because of this they can all be called "God" though they are not one singular being in anything else but what they are made of. The matter of God has certain qualities which makes them all similar, like being eternal, uncreated, good, etc, but that is because of their matter, not because they are the same being.

So in the creeds:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty (the Father is called God and is superior because He begetted the other two), Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ (He is called Lord beside the Father and not God), the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence (substance/matter) of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (matter) with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth] (the Father sent out His Logos/Reason/Thought to make all things); … [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"

The Second Nicene Creed:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (aeons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance ("of one matter", so He has the same matter as God and is called God of God, Light of Light, etc) with the Father; …"

The creed that created the grand mystery because people are confused about the nature of the Trinity, Athanasian:

"That we worship one God (one God because they are the same MATTER) in Trinity (three different persons), and Trinity in Unity (of one matter); Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence (substance/matter). 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 (IN MATTER); the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal (none were made). Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost (they are the same IN MATTER AND NOTHING ELSE), 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 (these qualities are given to them all because they are of the SAME MATTER AS THE FATHER AND THIS UNCREATED MATTER HAS THESE QUALITIES, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE ONE BEING). And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal (the one eternal is in their substance)."

The rest of the creed is such on and on.

So in short:

One matter (which is the Fathers matter), that makes up three people, one is greatest as He begets (the Father), then the Logos (the Son), then the Spirit.

Heresy?

>>636335

Yes it's heresy to say that the son is not co-equal with the father

>>636335

>One matter (which is the Fathers matter), that makes up three people, one is greatest as He begets (the Father), then the Logos (the Son), then the Spirit.

It's rather orthodox if by matter you mean substance/being and by makes up three people you mean is shared by three persons. The only sure problem with this formulation is that the essence isn't "the Fathers" anymore than it is the Son's, it is simply God's essence.

>>636511

By co-equal do you mean that they are both God, or that the Son and the Father have the same rank? The early Church Fathers seemed to think that the Son was "lesser" than the Father because He is eternally begotten and not eternally begetting, like a parent greater than their child. They are both rightfully called God, and are equal in that sense, but even the Lord says the Father is greater than He is.

>>636514

Shared by three persons is a much better way of putting it, me saying it "makes up three people" is because I like to explain this to people by using created matter example (like "how the substance of iron makes up three swords, they are all made of the same substance, and can all be called iron"). So yes, shared between them works. It is God's essence (as all three persons are eternal), but to make the point clear I make a firm distinction between the persons, and since the Father begets the Son and the Spirit, I call it "His."

>>636518

>>636514

And since it is fairly orthodox, what it explains is simply how they are one (they are only one in substance, like Basils example between the general and the particular, between animals and the particular human) without the whole """mystery""" which was created by reading the Athanasian creed into the two Nicene creeds instead of reading the Nicene creeds and the Church Fathers into the Athanasian creed. Because doing it the normal way creates a grand mystery, but meditating on it the other way (the proper way) removes the whole veil of "but how are three called one and how are they all God?"

>>636518

>It is God's essence (as all three persons are eternal), but to make the point clear I make a firm distinction between the persons, and since the Father begets the Son and the Spirit, I call it "His."

It's misleading though, it seems to imply it is the Father's in some special way.

>>636520

This sounds tritheistic. You and I share human essence, we are both fully man, but we are different particular humans. This doesn't apply to God. The Father is as similar to the Son as I am to myself.

>>636524

He is, as the begetter of both the Son and the Spirit (it being eternal kind of reduces the speciality of this, as it means they are all eternally God, but the Father is still acknowledged as the source for both of them). Like Tertullian said, the Logos to the Father is kind of like the thought to the thinker. The Son can not be the same as the Father in anything but their substance (which was the huge thing with the first Nicene creed adding homoousios/same substance/same matter), other than that He is an entirely different person, incarnated as man, but really "just" the Logos of the Universe. This is why I read the earliest expressions of the Trinity and the first creeds into the post-Athanasian assumptions (like the sameness of the Father and the Son and the Spirit), because they had the understanding:

1) The Father is the begetter of the Son/Logos.

2) The Logos and the Spirit are separate from the Father, and "lesser" (in rank) than Him because they are begotten from Him (if the essence of God were not timeless it would look exactly like the Logos arising from the Father and the Spirit arising from the Father after some time).

3) The Son and the Father being the same only in substance (which is why they expressed it as substance/matter, and divided things only by uncreated and created).

They are not three deities, merely three persons made up of uncreated matter (ignoring their roles). This is why Paul calls the Father God and Christ the Lord, a very distinct separation between the persons (though they are of the same substance). To blend them further and just say "all are God, all are Lord, all are Spirit, but yet they are each their own person" confuses what is meant by substance and denies their "rank" as begotten of the Father.

>>636531

>The Son can not be the same as the Father in anything but their substance (which was the huge thing with the first Nicene creed adding homoousios/same substance/same matter), other than that He is an entirely different person

You don't seem to understand how total substance is. The essence of God is everything within the being of God (including the persons). When we say that the Father and the Son are of the same substance, this means that they are totally identical except in their opposite relations of origin. The only difference between the Father and the Son is that the Son is begotten and the Father begets Him.

>This is why Paul calls the Father God and Christ the Lord

The Christian shema of 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not include any relational differences at all. God and Lord in the verse are equivalent, because the word Lord (kyrios) is being taken from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, where it was used to render the divine name. The point of the verse is the co-equality of the Father and Son, not their roles.

>>636333

>Substance:

>As you all know to the Greeks substance was everything.

The word used in Greek is "ousia", which literally translates to "being", or "essence of existence" or that which endows with the property of existing, or that out of which such an existence exists as such.

I would propose a revisionist understanding of these arguments that takes into account this translation mishap and lowers the prestige of all latin language discourses on the subject. (I also expect this will not happen, because it would lend more strength to the legitimacy of the Orthodox tradition contra the Roman-Catholics.)

>>636572

"Ousia" is closer in meaning to the scholastic term "quiddity" than "substance".

>>636572

>>636573

I am unaware of the term's usage in other schools, but at least in the Reformed tradition historically whatness is used most.

>>636333

Please do not contemplate the mystery of the trinity as it has no relation to your salvation. Thank you

>>636588

Then the Reformed theologians were more correct on this point than the Roman-Catholics.