/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>just feels borderline polytheism again, and while I know that's not the case I can't really put into words as to why that's not the case.

That is like asking a friend to pray for you is polytheism. When you examine the claims in a logical manner it falls apart.

Polytheism is the worship of many deities, there is only one deity/figure that is worshiped in Christianity. There are many other figures that are venerated and respected but not worshiped in any way. The key is realizing the difference between veneration and worship. We worship God as the infallible all powerful immortal creator, we venerate the Saints as fallible beings to displayed exemplary Christian behavior. Christ is the perfect model to follow after but sets an unattainable standard because he is perfect in every way. The Saints are a less than perfect model to follow after but set an attainable standard since they were themselves sinners like the rest of us.

Disclaimer: I keep getting called either a Modalist or a Tritheist on here for saying this. I will not bother answering objections. Take it or leave it.

Everything done by God is done by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. This is the basic principle of what the Trinity means.

Obviously the Father is God. But if the Son really comes from God, and really gives us God's divinity (by linking us back to the Father), and really saves us, He must be God. And if the Holy Spirit really comes from God, and really gives us God's divinity (by linking us back to the Son), and really saves us, He must be God. Therefore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all really God - they are of one essence.

Obviously what is done by God is done by the Father. But it is always done through the Son. The world was made through the Son, the voice of the Father is conveyed through the Son by the prophets and the angels (so much that the New Testament frames the "Adonai" and "YHWH" of the Old Testament as being Jesus specifically), and we can reach the Father by the intermediary of the Son, the sole mediator between God and man. One cannot separate the actions of the Son from that of the Father, because, generally speaking, if the Father is God acting "distantly", then the Son is God acting "among us".

And likewise, everything done by the Father through the Son is done in the Holy Spirit. It is in the Holy Spirit that the world was made, it is in the prophetic "Ruach" that the prophets could speak the words of the Father and the Son, it is by having the Holy Spirit in us that we can have the Son, and, through the Son, have the Father. One cannot separate the actions of the Holy Spirit from that of the Son, and therefore from that of the Father.

I'll note also that in the scriptures, the Son is described as the image and presence of the Father, and the Holy Spirit as the image and presence of the Son. But this is not like God manifesting Himself under a different form for the sake of His economy, but rather a single "movement" of the Father "reeling us" back to Himself, through the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is also why St John calls the Son the first Paraclete and the Holy Spirit the second Paraclete.

All this being said, my point is: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one energy. They do not have three energies, wills, loves, justices, etc. that coincide, but truly one.

Finally, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct and different persons. Even though they are one in essence, and one in energy, they are three persons, distinguishd by something proper to each. The Father is the sole cause, the Son is begotten of the Father alone, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The idea of the Word of God coming forth from God and being God manifesting Himself among the Israelites, and of the Breath of God coming forth from God and being God manifesting Himself in the Israelites, was not foreign to Judaism, but what the New Testament makes clear once and for all is that these two are not mere impersonal powers, or maybe angels carrying those powers, but they are truly persons, and truly God. Is this compehensible? Hardly so. But it can be experienced, through the sacraments. By tasting of the Eucharist, we -know- that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons who are one in essence and in energy, even though we ultimately reach a paradox if we try to write it down. Incidentally, pretty much every Trinitarian heresy has been an attempt at making sense out of this mystery.

>Christianity often gets accused of polytheism, especially by Muslims, while I do understand that's not the case I almost feel like I can't really explain in solid terms as to why that is the case, it's three different persons of the same essence that make up God to my understanding, but many times we make sure to worship all three persons, just something as simple as crossing oneself is a sign of worship of all three persons at the same time innit?

The three divine persons don't "make up" God. God does not have parts to be "made up" of. The Father is fully God, and the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God.

>So how is it not polytheism then when it's worshipping three seperate and different entities in their own right who can act independently of one another?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct but they are not separate and do not act independantly of one another. They are not three persons that co-operate, but they truly have only one operation. Again, what is done by God is done by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit (and, by the way, you can see here why the Father is most often called "God" while the Son is called "Word of God" and the Spirit "Spirit of God").

(cont)

>And how does Mary fit into all of this, we ask her to intercede yes, but there's entire prayers dedicated to her and we ask for salvation from her, just feels borderline polytheism again, and while I know that's not the case I can't really put into words as to why that's not the case.

She can save us through her prayers. I can save you through my prayers too, and you can save me through your prayers. Obviously no one but the most uneducated would claim that the saints have, on their own, the ability to save anyone - we pray for the saints to pray for us, and also we pray for one another, and all this is done with the intent to ask Jesus to have mercy on us.

>I also encountered the notion that the Holy Trinity is an invented concept deriving from theologians after the 1st century AD, and it has been made dogma in the 4th century basically, but it isn't directly mentioned, referred or even acknowledged in the Bible directly at least, despite being a very core and key rarely doubted concept, so what is the Biblical basis for it that would debunk the notion that it's a false doctrine that was invented later on?

The scriptures clearly and evidently portray Jesus as being "divine" in some manner that is unique to Him:

<2 Corinthians 8:8-9

>I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.

<Philippians 2:5-11

>Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

See also the Gospel of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, both of which are essentially treatises on how exactly Jesus is divine.

The issue with most of the 1st millenium's Trinitarian heresies was not whether Jesus is divine in any manner, but what the implications are. That is why any baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was considered valid by the ecumenical councils even if they came from sects that didn't recognie Jesus or the Holy Spirit as God - becausee they kept the ancient apostolic triadic principle, they just disagreed with the Orthodox on what it implies.

(cont)

Arianism says that Jesus is God as far as we are concerned, but not God in the sense of being eternal or uncreated or almighty. We cannot accept that, because then it means that the "riches" that Jesus empties Himself of to give us are not truly the divinity of God, and so theosis is impossible and Peter misspoke when he said we would participate in the divine nature.

Macedonianism does the same error toward the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is that of the Father and the Son, and is listed together with the Father and the Son, and gives us the Father and the Son, He must be God like the Father and like the Son as well.

Sabellianism ignores the very "societal" aspect of the Trinity and makes God talk to His own person. More gravely, it loses sight of the act of infinitely deep self-sacrificial love shown by the Son toward both the Father and us, and shuns the many times when the Son is called the mediator or priest between man and God.

Tritheism is obviously a problem for reasons I don't need to address.

And so on.

For a last word, have this image.

Imagine three persons chopping down a piece of wood.

If they are three distinct and separate persons chopping down a piece of wood at the same time, this is Tritheism. Three separate persons who just happen to perfectly co-operating together. A modern version of this heresy would be the idea that even if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial, they have 3 wills rather than 1.

If the act is one, but is done by what is really one person with three faces, this is Sabellianism (modalism). A modern version of this heresy would be to think of "God the Trinity" as "God in general", and then "God the Father", "God the Son", and "God the Holy Spirit" as "God in particular".

The orthodox doctrine would be to have three distinct persons chopping down a piece of wood in one single (rather than three coinciding) movement. Difficult to imagine, right? Everything done by God is done by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, and this is what "Trinity" means. "Trinity" is not a monad, but a description of a relationship, the unique kind of relationship that exists between the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit (begetting the Son and spirating the Holy Spirit), the Son and the Father and Holy Spirit (being begotten of the Father and possessing the Holy Spirit), and the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son (proceeding from the Father and resting on the Son). If you want to see how this eternal relationship is reflected in the gospels, look at the scenes of the Theophany and the Transfiguration.

>>803815

>especially by Muslims

Why do you care what moon worshiping demons say?

Anyways, God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. God isn't just the Father, he isn't just the Son, nor is he just the Holy Spirit, he is all of the above and one. You can't really explain it in mathematical terms because it's shrouded in divine mystery on how to make it all work out.

>prayers dedicated to her and we ask for salvation from her

Because Mary is pretty neat; giving birth to Christ and going to heaven without dying. This applies to Saints as well (expect for the things Mary did), they're pretty neat people who can intercede on your behalf.

>>803845

>and going to heaven without dying

>>803847

Well I mean, she got assumptioned with her body, so it's not correct to say that she didn't die I'm sorry but her body is in Heaven.

Sorry.

Islam only calls it polytheist because they deny Christ. There's no complex theological issue here. Once you believe in Christ, it falls into place. There's no way around the Trinity then.

>>803845

Some, hearing the Assumption described by the Eastern term dormition, incorrectly assume that the "falling asleep" means that Mary was assumed into Heaven before she could die.

But Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus, his November 1, 1950, declaration of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, cites ancient liturgical texts from both East and West, as well as the writings of the Church Fathers, all indicating that the Blessed Virgin had died before her body was assumed into Heaven.

Pius echoes this tradition in his own words:

this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ . . .

Mary's Death Is Not a Matter of Faith: Still, the dogma, as Pius XII defined it, leaves the question of whether the Virgin Mary died open. What Catholics must believe is that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

"[H]aving completed the course of her earthly life" is ambiguous; it allows for the possibility that Mary may not have died before her Assumption. In other words, while tradition has always indicated that Mary did die, Catholics are not bound, at least by the definition of the dogma, to believe it.

>>803839

Interesting analogy in the end. So the Father Son and Holy spirit is like to a person, Mind, Body, & Soul, in that they are all equally representative & mandatory for that person to be whole but distinct in their own nature? Or would you put it something differently.

>>803911

St Augustine (and I think St Maximus the Confessor too) did make an analogy between "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit", and "memory", "understanding", and "will". Another would be "lover", "loved", and "love". Other Fathers make an analogy with "the Sun", "the sunrays", and "the Sun's heat". Or "a spring", "a fountain", and "a river".

Or we can simply look at the divine names themselves. The Son is the Father's spoken "word", which really represents the Father's being without being the Father, and this "word" carries and is made present by the Father's "breath", the Holy Spirit.

Another example that is liked by the Orthodox is St Irenaeus of Lyons speaing of the Son and the Holy Spirit as the "two hands" of God, but even this can be easily misunderstood, making the Son and the Spirit appear to be two "temporal emanations" of God the Father (and some counter-arguments to the filioque go in that direction, sadly).

But, you're right that one can see a triune image in the human being too, with the soul, the body, and the spirit. But like any other analogy, it's far from perfect, and in that case it could easily be misunderstood, I think.

Also, be careful around the word "nature", because it is synonymous with "essence".

>>803852

That’s not even what the account says. She died first, then her body was assumptioned.

The Trinity is the most important philosophical advance since Socrates and his followers started talking about God as the almighty orderer of all things.

John 1 says that the Logos, Jesus, was with God, the Father, in the beginning, and through Jesus all things were made. Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father.

The Holy Spirit is mentioned several times in the Gospels, such as when Jesus says we need to be baptized in His name.

>>803815

> three seperate and different entities in their own right who can act independently of one another?

>I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

>But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.(John 10:38)

>Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.(John 5:19)

>By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me.(John 5:30)

>For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.(John 12:49)

>Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. (John 14:10)

>Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.(John 14:24)