/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>637650

(continued…)

Now, since the Father is God as he is, the Father may properly be known as "God-All-God". The Father has the highest degree of honor in the Trinity, and all of our worship is directed towards the Father. We worship the Son and the Holy Spirit because it is the will of the Father that we do so, because when we worship them we worship the Father. The Father is the center or our worship. This is not to say we don't worship the members of the Trinity equally. We do. We don't worship any one member of the Trinity above or below another, but our worship is ultimately directed towards the Father by the Holy Spirit through the Son.

(My own theological speculation: If the Holy Spirit is the perfect act of love between the Father and Son, and we worship the Father by the Holy Spirit through the Son, it may be said that the act of worship is actually the most perfect form of love because worship would be love itself.)

Because the Father is God-All-God, he is the only who properly deserves the title "God." Let me explain what I mean by this.

The Father is by nature God, the supreme being. Likewise, the Son and the Holy Spirit are by nature God. Each member of the Trinity is equally God. The Father is God in nature, the Son is God in nature, the Holy Spirit is God in nature. When we call the Son and the Holy Spirit God, we mean it in terms of their essential nature. When we call the Father God, we mean it as his essential nature, as well as his proper title. Because the Father is God as he is, the Father in the titular sense may be the only one called God for he is God-All-God and so his nature becomes extended as a proper title for him. This is why the Trinity may be refereed to as God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit - or as God, his Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is why the Son may be call the Son of God for he is generated from the Father who is God-All-God. This is also why the Holy Spirit may be called the Spirit of God for he finds his source in the Father who is God-All-God.

Again, to clarify. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all ontologically equal. None is above or below the other. They are all fully and completely omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. They are all powerful. We worship them all equally as God. One is not more God than any other. They are all God equally, and they are all equal to each other.

What is Jesus Christ? He is a by species a male and by genus a human, and he is also God. Jesus has is two beings or natures. He is God and man.

Who is Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ A.K.A the Son who has extended his personhood in the humanity of Christ thus uniting the divine and human nature of Christ. The human nature and the divine nature are not mixed, they are distinct, yet they are united by the person of Jesus Christ. Now, it may in some sense be said that the human nature of Christ is divine, not in the sense that it is divine nature, not in the sense that is has been absorbed or mixed with the divine nature, but in the sense that it is an extension of the personhood of the Son who is by nature is God. Jesus is the Son in humanity and divinity. Jesus Christ is simply the extension of the person of the Son in humanity, uniting the divine and human natures.

This is God. This is the Trinity. This is my understanding. I hope I have understood all that I have read correctly. Amen. Glory be to God. May my ignorance be corrected if need be. If I have unintentionally spoken heresy through misunderstanding, I recant immediately. Amen. Glory to God in the highest. In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God now and forever. Amen.

>>637650

Also, just to mention, since I find I did not say it, to make clear, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son.

>>637650

If you believed that the Spirit proceeded singly from the Father like the early Christians believed and the Church Fathers, then this would be fine. But I won't go into that.

What you have here is simply the proper understanding of the Divinity (I refrain from using "Trinity" or "Godhead" as St. Paul does not use this, and saying "the Divinity is one God in three persons" is more accurate imo) and the economic subordination of the Son and the Spirit. When properly grasped you will have no mystery when pondering the Trinity.There is nothing to not fully comprehend.

>>637650

>one divine mind

This is incorrect. One mind makes three persons meaningless.

>The Father sufficiently could exist as he is on his own without either the Son or Holy Spirit

Incorrect. This would mean the Son is only accidentally and not essentially God, and therefore of a different essence from the Father.

>>637651

>The Father has the highest degree of honor in the Trinity, and all of our worship is directed towards the Father. We worship the Son and the Holy Spirit because it is the will of the Father that we do so, because when we worship them we worship the Father.

No. The persons of the Trinity are completely equal in honor and each person deserves worship by their nature. Our worship is always of the Godhead because the persons are indivisible. The center of worship is merely God.

>Because the Father is God-All-God, he is the only who properly deserves the title "God."

Dangerously wrong. The word God, as you have noted, refers simply to the one beyond this world. Hence, God is the proper title of each person.

>Because the Father is God as he is

You seem to implying that is true of the Father alone. We must remember if the Son is God, He is not dependent on the Father for His existence.

>The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all ontologically equal

More than that, they are ontologically identical. That's why what you just said is asinine, because it makes distinctions between them.

>it may in some sense be said that the human nature of Christ is divine

No it may not. We can say the man was God, but we cannot say the human nature was divine. This is because the former statement is a personal predication whereas the latter is natural.

>>637724

I don't know about the other stuff, but

>This is incorrect. One mind makes three persons meaningless.

That's wrong, saying the three persons have separate minds implies they are separate beings and thus three different gods. The International Catholic University says,

>"Because of modern psychology, we tend to think of "person" as a center of consciousness – thinking and willing. That is true, but it does not exhaust the reality of what is meant in theology by a divine Person.

>…

>The fatherhood constitutes the Person of the Father, the sonship constitutes the Person of the Son, and the passive spiration constitutes the Person of the Holy Spirit. But in God "everything is one where there is no distinction by relative opposition." Consequently, even though in God there are three Persons, there is only one consciousness, one thinking and one loving. The three Persons share equally in the internal divine activity because they are all identified with the divine essence. For, if each divine Person possessed his own distinct and different consciousness, there would be three gods, not the one God of Christian revelation. So you will see that in this regard there is an immense difference between a divine Person and a human person.

https://icucourses.com/pages/025-10-three-persons-are-subsistent-relations

>>637650

When I asked this question to r/reform they directed me to Athanasius's creed and I got to say it's through on the revelation of the Trinity, almost painfully so. Likewise, the Athanasian creed is my suggestion to read if you want to fully understand the Trinity.

>>637737

>That's wrong

No, it's correct, and the alternative is Modalism. If they share a mind how are they capable of interaction?

<When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,

If they share a mind this verse are about as meaningful as me speaking to myself. Am I two persons? This definition requires us to believe that a mind is not necessary for something to be a person. Are the rocks outside my house persons?

>saying the three persons have separate minds implies they are separate beings and thus three different gods

No, it implies they are separate persons. They are one being in three persons.

>Because of modern psychology, we tend to think of "person" as a center of consciousness

No I think that's because we are made in the image of God and hence have a tendency to common sense.

>even though in God there are three Persons, there is only one consciousness

This is a pure contradiction. It states that something both is and is not at the same time.

>one thinking and one loving

Guess the bible was lying when it said the Father loves the Son.

>if each divine Person possessed his own distinct and different consciousness, there would be three gods

Repudiation of the distinction between being and person.

>>637752

No retard, you are believing exactly what that article is saying,you're giving into the modern psychological notion of a person when this isn't what is meant by person in the Trinity. This is why it's better to use the term "hypostasis", which was what was originally used in the Greek to distinguish the persons, and even Augustine notes this.

>>637759

You're retarded.

>>637724

>This is incorrect. One mind makes three persons meaningless.

When are we gonna declare social trinitarianism a heresy already?

There is only one will in the Trinity. Not three wills that coincide, but one divine will.

>No, it's correct, and the alternative is Modalism. If they share a mind how are they capable of interaction?

Because things are done in movement in the Godhead, defining each person in relation to the others. For instance, there is one loving because the Father is the lover, the Son is the loved, and the Holy Spirit is the love.

>>637650

>The Holy Spirit is a single spiration of the Father through the Son, finding a double procession by going through the Son because the Father has given the Son all things except Fatherhood.

I'm Orthodox, so naturally I'm not comfortable with this. I'll bring the usual complaints - is the procession of the Spirit a property of a hypostasis or a property of the essence? If of the hypostasis, it can't be transmitted from the Father to the Son without making them the same hypostasis. If of the essence, then necessarily the Spirit proceeds from Himself also, or else the Spirit isn't consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

I see how it's orthodox in a way to say the Son inherits the Spirit's "procession" from the Father in Latin theology, but I don't think it's ideal.

>The Word is the mind or thought of God in which God emanates out from himself as a separate mode of existence, or in more precise terms, as a separate hypostasis/person

I think it might be more simple to say it like this: the Father is the mind, the origination. The Son is the word that comes out of the Father's mouth, a perfect expression of His mind. The Spirit is the breath that carries the word, a perfect expression of the word as it carries its information.

Just… not comfortable with calling the Son an "emanation." Getting Against Heresies book I flashbacks.

>The Holy Spirit is a passive spiration of the Father

Passive? What do you mean?

On another note, the Spirit is also sometimes identified with the Wisdom of God.

>Now, since the Father is God as he is, the Father may properly be known as "God-All-God". The Father has the highest degree of honor in the Trinity, and all of our worship is directed towards the Father. We worship the Son and the Holy Spirit because it is the will of the Father that we do so, because when we worship them we worship the Father. The Father is the center or our worship. This is not to say we don't worship the members of the Trinity equally. We do. We don't worship any one member of the Trinity above or below another, but our worship is ultimately directed towards the Father by the Holy Spirit through the Son.

Super yikes. First, in a primary sense, the Father is "God" (ho theos) while the Son is the Word of God and the Spirit is the Breath of God. But in a secondary sense, the Son is True God from True God and the Spirit is True God from True God, and we can't forget that. The Father's Monarchy does not destroy the co-equality of the divine persons. In fact, there is no subordination in the Trinity.

Our worship is to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, because the Father is the origination of all things, even within the Trinity. Not because the Father somehow has a higher degree of honor than the Son and the Spirit.

>This is why the Trinity may be refereed to as God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit - or as God, his Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is why the Son may be call the Son of God for he is generated from the Father who is God-All-God. This is also why the Holy Spirit may be called the Spirit of God for he finds his source in the Father who is God-All-God.

I don't think you're wrong (especially as you clarify yourself afterward), but you're wording it very weird. The Father is the principle without principle, and that's it. If the three divine persons are co-equal in all things, how could we give higher honor to any one of them?

>Now, it may in some sense be said that the human nature of Christ is divine, not in the sense that it is divine nature, not in the sense that is has been absorbed or mixed with the divine nature, but in the sense that it is an extension of the personhood of the Son who is by nature is God.

You might mean that it is divinized, which is the goal we're aiming for now that we are in Christ too.

>>637658

What is the eternal relation between the Son and the Spirit?

>There is nothing to not fully comprehend.

Gnostic go home

>>637784

>There is only one will in the Trinity. Not three wills that coincide, but one divine will.

Reread what I actually said, and then rethink this response.

>>637786

I reread what you said and my response hasn't changed.

The Son offered up His humanity to the Father, aligning the human will with the divine will. But there is one divine will, one divine consciousness, shared by three persons. You seem to think that consciousness is the only thing that distinguishes a person from another.

>>637650

St. Patrick's Bad Analogies

The Trinity concept was invented in the first few centuries A.D.

God smote heathens for having multiple gods, yet Christians now believe in a 3 god clan called the "Trinity" while telling ourselves that we are monotheists.

>>637791

>one divine consciousness, shared by three persons

Meaningless.

>You seem to think that consciousness is the only thing that distinguishes a person from another

No, I recognize there is no personhood without consciousness.

>>637724

>This is incorrect. One mind makes three persons meaningless.

I guess see >>637737 >>637784

>Incorrect. This would mean the Son is only accidentally and not essentially God, and therefore of a different essence from the Father.

Not necessarily. Let me explain.

God is necessarily the Father, and because he is the Father there must necessarily be the Son, and for another reason there also must necessarily be the Holy Spirit, and this is a necessary product within God precisely because of who God is and his attributes which are from eternity. So the Trinity is necessary in God because of how God is. Yet, because the Father is neither generated nor does he proceed from anyone, he is sufficient unto himself insomuch as he is the principle without principle. So hypotheticallyif there was no Trinity, God would simple be God as he is, which the Father is because the Father is God as he is, though he would not be Father relationally and would be a different kind of person within himself from which there could be no Trinity.

>No. The persons of the Trinity are completely equal in honor and each person deserves worship by their nature. Our worship is always of the Godhead because the persons are indivisible. The center of worship is merely God.

When I say "honor", I do not mean it that we are to give the Father more honor than the Son and Holy Spirit, I mean it by his place in the Trinity, to which the Son and Holy Spirit willingly submit themselves to the Father.

>Dangerously wrong. The word God, as you have noted, refers simply to the one beyond this world. Hence, God is the proper title of each person.

I don't believe so at all, especially based on scripture itself and the writings of the Church Fathers. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully equally God, but the Father is the source of the Godhead and is God as he is so his nature naturally extends to him as proper a title for him.

>You seem to implying that is true of the Father alone. We must remember if the Son is God, He is not dependent on the Father for His existence.

This is true of the Father alone, and the Son is dependent on the Father for his being. This is the economic subordination within the Trinity which is inherently apart of orthodox doctrine. To not admit of it would to say the Father is Father in substance, the Son is Son in substance, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit in substance, but this is false and would (depending on how you interpret it) divide God into parts or advocates Modalism.

>More than that, they are ontologically identical. That's why what you just said is asinine, because it makes distinctions between them.

If you mean that in that each of their modes of existence as persons are identical to one another, that is completely wrong and is Modalism. They are ontologically identical in their being not their persons.

>No it may not. We can say the man was God, but we cannot say the human nature was divine. This is because the former statement is a personal predication whereas the latter is natural.

See >>637784

>>637784

>When are we gonna declare social trinitarianism a heresy already?

The Catholic Church already totally rejects the theory. It does come dangerously close to polytheism in all truth.

>Because things are done in movement in the Godhead, defining each person in relation to the others. For instance, there is one loving because the Father is the lover, the Son is the loved, and the Holy Spirit is the love.

Exactly this.

>is the procession of the Spirit a property of a hypostasis or a property of the essence? If of the hypostasis, it can't be transmitted from the Father to the Son without making them the same hypostasis. If of the essence, then necessarily the Spirit proceeds from Himself also, or else the Spirit isn't consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

I don't think so. Not everything is spoken of the substance and can be spoken of the relations separately. The Father has given the Son the procession of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis, and which I understand to be a mystery about the Trinity, yet this is what all the Latin Father's professed from Tertullian on.

>I think it might be more simple to say it like this: the Father is the mind, the origination. The Son is the word that comes out of the Father's mouth, a perfect expression of His mind. The Spirit is the breath that carries the word, a perfect expression of the word as it carries its information.

>Just… not comfortable with calling the Son an "emanation." Getting Against Heresies book I flashbacks.

Aquinas uses the term "emanation" occasionally for the persons. Anyhow, what you said is an alternative and valid view.

>Super yikes. First, in a primary sense, the Father is "God" (ho theos) while the Son is the Word of God and the Spirit is the Breath of God. But in a secondary sense, the Son is True God from True God and the Spirit is True God from True God, and we can't forget that. The Father's Monarchy does not destroy the co-equality of the divine persons. In fact, there is no subordination in the Trinity.

Our worship is to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, because the Father is the origination of all things, even within the Trinity.

Go back and read what I wrote because I admit of that exactly.

>I don't think you're wrong (especially as you clarify yourself afterward), but you're wording it very weird. The Father is the principle without principle, and that's it. If the three divine persons are co-equal in all things, how could we give higher honor to any one of them?

When I mean honor, I don't mean the Father deserves more honor than Son or Holy Spirit, I mean it in what I said here >>637942

>You might mean that it is divinized, which is the goal we're aiming for now that we are in Christ too.

Yes, you can put it like that.

>>637942

>Yet, because the Father is neither generated nor does he proceed from anyone, he is sufficient unto himself insomuch as he is the principle without principle

But the persons are equally God by nature regardless of the order. The existence of the Son is the essence of the Father, and therefore, He is no less God of Himself than the Father.

>So hypotheticallyif there was no Trinity

This hypothetical is not even logically possible. As noted, the Trinity is the essence of God, so there being no Trinity is the same as there being no God.

>When I say "honor", I do not mean it that we are to give the Father more honor than the Son and Holy Spirit, I mean it by his place in the Trinity, to which the Son and Holy Spirit willingly submit themselves to the Father.

You linked this "honor" to our worship.

>The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully equally God, but the Father is the source of the Godhead and is God as he is so his nature naturally extends to him as proper a title for him.

God is an essential title, if the Trinity is entirely of one essence, each person is properly titled God.

>This is true of the Father alone, and the Son is dependent on the Father for his being

Then the Son is not God, but a creature of a different essence from the Father. God depends on nothing, not even Himself. If the Son does not possess aseity, He lacks an essential attribute which the Father has. There is no Trinity if the Son is not autotheos.

>This is the economic subordination within the Trinity which is inherently apart of orthodox doctrine

No, it is not. The Son is begotten of the Father, not because He is dependent on the Father to exist, but because it is His essence to be so. The essential nature of filiation proves I am correct, since with filiation, the Son exists. Thus the Son is as independent and fundamental as the Father, since the Father exists the Son of necessity exists, and on what is the Father dependent for His existence?

>If you mean that in that each of their modes of existence as persons are identical to one another

They are similar to the point of being the same, distinct by virue of their opposite relations of origin alone.

>>638042

>But the persons are equally God by nature regardless of the order. The existence of the Son is the essence of the Father, and therefore, He is no less God of Himself than the Father.

Yes, I completely 100% agree with this statement.

>This hypothetical is not even logically possible. As noted, the Trinity is the essence of God, so there being no Trinity is the same as there being no God.

I agree that the hypothetical I put forth is nothing more than a pure phantasm, and in fact if you see my argument I said that God is necessarily a Trinity for the Trinity is God. I agree fully here.

>You linked this "honor" to our worship.

I didn't mean it like that. I specifically said that we worship each person equally fully and without one above or below the other. I did not intend to mean we honor the Father more than the other persons, I mean it as I already explained to you.

>God is an essential title, if the Trinity is entirely of one essence, each person is properly titled God.

God is the nature of the divinity, thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. Three persons, yet one God. But the Father is the principle of the the Trinity, God as he is, thus the Father properly takes on the title God. Notice 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, and possibly John 1:1. Also, take the words of St. Irenaeus,

>"Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all [the Father], who also said to Moses, I am that I am. And thus shall you say to the children of Israel: He who is, has sent me unto you; and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God." - Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 6)

>"For when John, proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlightens every man, this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us — these men, by a plausible kind of exposition, perverting these statements, maintain that there was another Monogenes, according to production, whom they also style Arche." - Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 9)

>Then the Son is not God, but a creature of a different essence from the Father. God depends on nothing, not even Himself. If the Son does not possess aseity, He lacks an essential attribute which the Father has. There is no Trinity if the Son is not autotheos.

You sound like the heretics arguing with Gregory Gregory Nazianzus over this same point of contention. To which he responds,

>How then are They not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light. And yet They are in some sense unoriginate, in respect of time, even though you would scare simple minds with your quibbles, for the Sources of Time are not subject to time.

The Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit, in him they find their origin. You are denying an essential orthodox doctrine. Are you saying the Son is unbegotten and that the Holy Spirit does not proceed? That is heresy!

>No, it is not. The Son is begotten of the Father, not because He is dependent on the Father to exist, but because it is His essence to be so. The essential nature of filiation proves I am correct, since with filiation, the Son exists. Thus the Son is as independent and fundamental as the Father, since the Father exists the Son of necessity exists, and on what is the Father dependent for His existence?

I refer you to what I just wrote above. The Father is not dependent on anyone for his existence, he is unbegotten. Again, Naziansus writes exactly on this and refute you. Please, read this: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310229.htm

You are actually going against orthodox doctrine of the Trinity now.

>>638075

I suppose everything the Church Fathers wrote on the Trinity was meaningless then.

>>638074

>Are you saying the Son is unbegotten and that the Holy Spirit does not proceed?

They do, by nature. The Son and the Holy Spirit are necessary subsistences, they exist by nature. They cannot help but exist. You and I are dependent on the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are dependent on nothing.

The Son is begotten of the Father by nature. The Father exists from nothing and of nothing, the Son exists from the Father and of nothing.

>The Father is not dependent on anyone for his existence, he is unbegotten

Exactly. That's my point. While it is true that without the Father there would be no Son, the only way there would be no Son is if there were no God.

>You are actually going against orthodox doctrine of the Trinity now.

I want you to read this whole post now. If you do not agree with it, you are an Arian, you are not a Christian, and you stand against the Nicene faith. You said that if you have spoken heresy, you recant immediately. Do you now go back on that?