Trinity

[Acumen]

glu,

As a triune being God consists of three parts known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so no one of these is "all of" God quantitatively.  But since the substance of God is indivisible, each is substantially fully God. i.e. there is no aspect of divinity which exists in one Person to the exclusion of the others.  No one Person of the Trinity is "missing" anything of the divine nature, such that it would be less than God when considered in isolation from the other Persons.

Hmmm . . . sounds like a lot of bells and whistles, Gludys.  Ultimately, God is perfect, and since perfection requires the necessary presence of all things good, then perfection also requires the necessity of all divine attributes or characteristics.  This means that every attribute or characteristic that God possesses are essential to His perfection precisely because they are good.  Therefore, all attributes or characteristics of God are His substance, which blurs the line between quantity and quality to the point where there is essentially no difference between the two.  If all of God is not in each member of the triune God, then we are left with a demi-god.

One might use the common analogy of water in its three states of gas, liquid and solid.  Each is distinct, but is ice any less H2O than liquid water?  Is it somehow "demi-water" because of its solidity?  Certainly not on a chemical (substance?) level. 

Right, but there is a serious problem with this analogy.  Water is not perfect, and you need it to be to prove your point concerning a perfect God.  If water were perfect, then it would possess all states of water at the same time, essentially bluring the lines between quality and quanity.  Allow me to demonstrate.  For something to be perfect, it cannot lack anything good.  Now imagine that water is perfect.  If water is perfect, it cannot lack anything good.  If a gas state of water is good, but the liquid state of water doesn't possess the characteristics of the gas state, then the liquid state of water lacks something that is good, namely the gas state of water.  In order for something to be perfect, all parts of it cannot lack anything good, which quite clearly the liquid state did.

-Acumen

[gluadys]

glu,

As a triune being God consists of three parts known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so no one of these is "all of" God quantitatively.  But since the substance of God is indivisible, each is substantially fully God. i.e. there is no aspect of divinity which exists in one Person to the exclusion of the others.  No one Person of the Trinity is "missing" anything of the divine nature, such that it would be less than God when considered in isolation from the other Persons.

Hmmm . . . sounds like a lot of bells and whistles, Gludys.  Ultimately, God is perfect, and since perfection requires the necessary presence of all things good, then perfection also requires the necessity of all divine attributes or characteristics.  This means that every attribute or characteristic that God possesses are essential to His perfection precisely because they are good.  Therefore, all attributes or characteristics of God are His substance, which blurs the line between quantity and quality to the point where there is essentially no difference between the two.  If all of God is not in each member of the triune God, then we are left with a demi-god.

This sounds too much like the ontological argument for the existence of God.  Logic does not demand existence.  Nor do I see any line being blurred between quantity and quality. 

You seem to be thinking that God's attributes are apportioned among the Persons so that an attribute of the Father would be missing in the Son or the Spirit and hence, considered separately they are demi-gods.  But no attribute of the Father is not also found in both Son and Spirit.

Have you read the Athanasian Creed lately?

It is rather long, but here is a relevant excerpt:

Such as is the Father, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit;
The  Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Spirit uncreated;
The Father infinite, the Son infinite, the Holy Spirit infinite;
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal;
And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal;
And also there are not three uncreated, nor three infinites, but one infinite and one uncreated.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty;
And yet there are not three almighties but one almighty.

etc.

So, since the unity of substance means there is one eternal, one infinite, one uncreated, one almighty, etc.  that one is fully in each Person, though each Person is not "all" of God.   

Right, but there is a serious problem with this analogy.

Analogies always have problems.  That's the nature of the beast.  But I see no logical reason why "perfect" water would need to possess all states at the same time.  In every state it is H2O.  It's substance is the same, neither more nor less than in any other state.   The "perfection" of the molecule is not changed by  the degree of its activity, which, fundamentally, is all that a change of state is. 

 

[thedefender]

What is theoretical about the kenotic theory? Philippians 2 says that "he humbled himself". This is when he became "lower than the angels". And this makes sense because he created the angels! (Colossians 1, John 1) and was before all things and by him all things exists and have their being.

It makes a lot of sense to me that God could not possibly come down and walk among men 1). because he is holy and 2). because no man can see God and live. He had to robe himself in flesh and divest himself of some of the attributes of his full nature in order to make his life on this earth possible in the form of a man.

The light of the world has come! But in what a vessel.

Derrick the defender

[Acumen]

Glu,

This sounds too much like the ontological argument for the existence of God.  Logic does not demand existence.  Nor do I see any line being blurred between quantity and quality.

I don't intend to argue for God existence, and I made no such attempts.

You seem to be thinking that God's attributes are apportioned among the Persons so that an attribute of the Father would be missing in the Son or the Spirit and hence, considered separately they are demi-gods.  But no attribute of the Father is not also found in both Son and Spirit.

Actually, I DON'T think that at all.  I don't believe in a trinity, I don't believe there are three persons in the Godhead, and therefore I do not believe each person of the Godhead lacks attributes possessed by the other.  MY argument is stating that perfection requires that EVERY attribute be good.  A perfect human, if there were such a thing, would be without flaw and every characteristic would not lack goodness.  This would include things like the hair on her head to the arch in her foot.  MY point is that if you have three persons in the Godhead, they had better be identical in everyway because perfection requires it.  If another human came along and was identical in everyway, but had flat feet, then this person cannot be said to be perfect.  Why?  Because the first perfect human had archs in her feet, and all attributes of a perfect human are good.  The flat-footed human lacks an arch, which is a good thing because a perfect human possessed it.  Therefore the logical conclusion is that the flat-footed person lacks something good, namely an arch.  It follows, therefore, that there can be no distinctions in the persons of the Godhead, because all such distinctions demonstrate things that are good that the other person does not have, which means the latter person lacks something good.

Analogies always have problems.  That's the nature of the beast.  But I see no logical reason why "perfect" water would need to possess all states at the same time.  In every state it is H2O.  It's substance is the same, neither more nor less than in any other state.   The "perfection" of the molecule is not changed by  the degree of its activity, which, fundamentally, is all that a change of state is. 

You're right.  Analogies always have problems because a perfect analogy would be a virtual facsimile of the thing drawing the comparison.  However, I said there is a "serious" flaw with your analogy -- and I told you why. 

You don't see the "logical reason why perfect water" requires all states at the same time because water isn't perfect.  If water were perfect, there wouldn't be three states, but rather one -- and I wouldn't have to demonstrate why each state is a symptom of imperfection.  Imperfect water has a substance and state.  The substance allows for temperature and pressure to produce its states.  When changing into different states, the chemical properties don't change, but the physical properties do.  When the physical properties change such as from solid into a gas, its abilities change.  When solid water changes into a gas, people can no longer ice skate because the gaseous properties of water lost the ability to support ice skaters when it evaporated.  The substance may be the same, but the abilities are not.  And when abilities are different, one form has good attributes that the other form doesn't.  And that which is perfect lacks nothing good. 

 

[gluadys]

MY point is that if you have three persons in the Godhead, they had better be identical in everyway because perfection requires it.   It follows, therefore, that there can be no distinctions in the persons of the Godhead, because all such distinctions demonstrate things that are good that the other person does not have, which means the latter person lacks something good.

There are distinctions between the Persons, but they are not distinctions of substance or attributes.

Here are the distinctions:

The Father is made of none, nor created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

There is therefore one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; and one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

And in this Trinity there is no before or after, no greater or less
But all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.

You don't see the "logical reason why perfect water" requires all states at the same time because water isn't perfect.  If water were perfect, there wouldn't be three states, but rather one -- and I wouldn't have to demonstrate why each state is a symptom of imperfection.  Imperfect water has a substance and state.  The substance allows for temperature and pressure to produce its states.  When changing into different states, the chemical properties don't change, but the physical properties do.  When the physical properties change such as from solid into a gas, its abilities change.  When solid water changes into a gas, people can no longer ice skate because the gaseous properties of water lost the ability to support ice skaters when it evaporated.  The substance may be the same, but the abilities are not.  And when abilities are different, one form has good attributes that the other form doesn't.  And that which is perfect lacks nothing good.

OK.  And actually, on reflection, I recalled that one of the ways that water breaks down as an analogy of the Trinity is precisely on this point.  Water can only exist in one state at a time.  But the Trinity always exists in all three Persons simultaneously and eternally.   

[Thorolf]

The co-equal part doesn't work... even if the rest were to be accepted.

Co-equal would REQUIRE equality on all levels. Simply reading scripture, if you look at the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate persons, there is then a fairly clear hierarchy of command.

The Father is in control, directing both the Son and Holy Spirit. At times, the Son directs the Holy Spirit. At no time does the Holy Spirit exert any influence whatsoever on the Father or the Son.

So there appears to be a decided LACK of co-equality among the three persons.

Since it was mentioned. 

[Acumen]

Gluadys,

There are distinctions between the Persons, but they are not distinctions of substance or attributes.  Here are the distinctions:

The Father is made of none, nor created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.  There is therefore one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; and one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.  And in this Trinity there is no before or after, no greater or less  But all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.

This doesn't tell me how they are distinct from each other.  Yes, the Father is not the Son.  The son is not the HS.  And the HS is not the Father.  The only point remotely made that shows any type of distinction is the statement that the Son is begotten, not made or created.  This makes no sense, but it doesn't surprise me coming from a church that says something can be eternally begotten.

OK.  And actually, on reflection, I recalled that one of the ways that water breaks down as an analogy of the Trinity is precisely on this point.  Water can only exist in one state at a time.  But the Trinity always exists in all three Persons simultaneously and eternally.

I've already considered this point when I was bouncing it around in my head yesterday.  Water may not exist in all three states simultaneously, but this consideration isn't really relevant to showing the logical impossibility of the trinity.  Distinction within perfection, however, is crippling to the trinitarian understanding.

-Acumen 

[gluadys]

The co-equal part doesn't work... even if the rest were to be accepted.

Co-equal would REQUIRE equality on all levels. Simply reading scripture, if you look at the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate persons, there is then a fairly clear hierarchy of command.

The Father is in control, directing both the Son and Holy Spirit. At times, the Son directs the Holy Spirit. At no time does the Holy Spirit exert any influence whatsoever on the Father or the Son.

There is no hierarchy of command, and no need for influence.  The Father does not direct the Son.  The Father begets the Son.  And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

But as all are one in substance and wisdom and will, there is no need for command or direction or influence.

[gluadys]

Gluadys,

There are distinctions between the Persons, but they are not distinctions of substance or attributes.  Here are the distinctions:

The Father is made of none, nor created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.  There is therefore one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; and one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.  And in this Trinity there is no before or after, no greater or less  But all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.

This doesn't tell me how they are distinct from each other.  Yes, the Father is not the Son.  The son is not the HS.  And the HS is not the Father.

Because, as has already been noted, they are not distinct in substance.    So, of course, they have no particular attributes which would distinguish one from the other.  What is set out here is a series of relationships.  The only distinction comes from the fact that the relationships are one-way only.  The Father begets the Son, but the Son does not beget the Father.  The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but neither Father nor Son proceeds from the Holy Spirit. 



 

  This makes no sense, but it doesn't surprise me coming from a church that says something can be eternally begotten.

IIRC Augustine once said that the doctrine of the Trinity was not developed to say something but to avoid saying nothing (meaning nothing in response to non-Trinitarian "heresies").  If you like, it is not that the Trinity makes sense, but that it prevents nonsense.   

[Thorolf]

The United States Army goes forth from the General, who is appointed by the President.

They even operate under one will, and arguably even one substance.

But that doesn't make them co-equal.

Insisting that there is no heirarchy when logic notes that there clearly is (the Holy Spirit is clearly doing the bidding of both the Father and the Son - and the Son is doing the bidding of the Father) may satisfy those predisposed to accept the doctrine of Trinity, but I just don't see how it fits either scripture or the original Apostolic tradition.

The only way I can see it fitting is if all three are different ways that the one, singular person of God communicates with His people.

[Thorolf]

IIRC Augustine once said that the doctrine of the Trinity was not developed to say something but to avoid saying nothing (meaning nothing in response to non-Trinitarian "heresies").  If you like, it is not that the Trinity makes sense, but that it prevents nonsense.   

When you or I try to fill emptiness with noise for the sake of ending the pregnant pause, we often end up embarrassing ourselves... Filling dead space is probably not the best motive for or means of creating doctrine. 

[gluadys]

IIRC Augustine once said that the doctrine of the Trinity was not developed to say something but to avoid saying nothing (meaning nothing in response to non-Trinitarian "heresies").  If you like, it is not that the Trinity makes sense, but that it prevents nonsense.   

When you or I try to fill emptiness with noise for the sake of ending the pregnant pause, we often end up embarrassing ourselves... Filling dead space is probably not the best motive for or means of creating doctrine. 

True, but what the fathers of orthodoxy were faced with was not a pregnant pause but the cacophony of heresy. 

[Thorolf]

IIRC Augustine once said that the doctrine of the Trinity was not developed to say something but to avoid saying nothing (meaning nothing in response to non-Trinitarian "heresies").  If you like, it is not that the Trinity makes sense, but that it prevents nonsense.   

When you or I try to fill emptiness with noise for the sake of ending the pregnant pause, we often end up embarrassing ourselves... Filling dead space is probably not the best motive for or means of creating doctrine. 

True, but what the fathers of orthodoxy were faced with was not a pregnant pause but the cacophony of heresy. 

"Heresy" borne of a lack of Tradition, doctrine, and understanding. Seems to me that trinity was more or less created to fill a hole.

In other words, six of one, a half dozen of the other.

[gluadys]

IIRC Augustine once said that the doctrine of the Trinity was not developed to say something but to avoid saying nothing (meaning nothing in response to non-Trinitarian "heresies").  If you like, it is not that the Trinity makes sense, but that it prevents nonsense.   

When you or I try to fill emptiness with noise for the sake of ending the pregnant pause, we often end up embarrassing ourselves... Filling dead space is probably not the best motive for or means of creating doctrine. 

True, but what the fathers of orthodoxy were faced with was not a pregnant pause but the cacophony of heresy. 

"Heresy" borne of a lack of Tradition, doctrine, and understanding. Seems to me that trinity was more or less created to fill a hole.

That could be said of most doctrine. 

[Thorolf]

IIRC Augustine once said that the doctrine of the Trinity was not developed to say something but to avoid saying nothing (meaning nothing in response to non-Trinitarian "heresies").  If you like, it is not that the Trinity makes sense, but that it prevents nonsense.   

When you or I try to fill emptiness with noise for the sake of ending the pregnant pause, we often end up embarrassing ourselves... Filling dead space is probably not the best motive for or means of creating doctrine. 

True, but what the fathers of orthodoxy were faced with was not a pregnant pause but the cacophony of heresy. 

"Heresy" borne of a lack of Tradition, doctrine, and understanding. Seems to me that trinity was more or less created to fill a hole.

That could be said of most doctrine. 

Indeed, it can - and I'd say that's sort of the basis of the protestant position, wouldn't you agree?

[gluadys]

Indeed, it can - and I'd say that's sort of the basis of the protestant position, wouldn't you agree?

Hardly.  There is really not a lot in Protestantism that is not also found in its predecessors.  The doctrine of the Trinity preceded Protestantism by a millennium. 

As the Orthodox say "Scratch a Protestant, find a Latin." 

[Thorolf]

Indeed, it can - and I'd say that's sort of the basis of the protestant position, wouldn't you agree?

Hardly.  There is really not a lot in Protestantism that is not also found in its predecessors.  The doctrine of the Trinity preceded Protestantism by a millennium. 

As the Orthodox say "Scratch a Protestant, find a Latin." 

I'm not entirely sure what the relevance of the timeline is. It doesn't really matter WHEN someone protested, but rather THAT they protested. I would also note that there's Lutheran-era protestant movements, which I'm guessing you're referring to, and then there are the "heretical" movements - movements that did NOT simply go away when the powers that were in the Church rejected them. Those heretical movements, who protested the Church's position, would be included in my use of the phrase "protestant position."

Perhaps it was poor word choice on my part, but I'm going to go ahead and lump them all together, anyway.

[gluadys]

and then there are the "heretical" movements - movements that did NOT simply go away when the powers that were in the Church rejected them. Those heretical movements, who protested the Church's position, would be included in my use of the phrase "protestant position."

Some of those (e.g. Hussites, Waldensians) would be seen as pre-Reformation "Protestants".  But most of the early non-orthodox, anti-orthodox groups would be considered heretical by Protestants as well as by Catholics. 

[Acumen]

Glu,

Because, as has already been noted, they are not distinct in substance.    So, of course, they have no particular attributes which would distinguish one from the other.  What is set out here is a series of relationships.  The only distinction comes from the fact that the relationships are one-way only.  The Father begets the Son, but the Son does not beget the Father.  The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but neither Father nor Son proceeds from the Holy Spirit.

If the trinity is one in substance, then what is the point of these relationships?  If I understand you correctly, the trinity has a single substance with no differing attributes between them -- other than their relationship with each other.  But if there is no differing attributes between them, then what is the reason for different relationships?  Why does the Son come from the Father?  Why does the HS proceed from the Father and Son?  If the difference in attributes are not the cause for differing, recipricating relationships with each other, then what's the purpose?  There would seem to be no real need for three persons when it can be essentially achieved with one person.

-Acumen

[gluadys]

Insisting that there is no heirarchy when logic notes that there clearly is (the Holy Spirit is clearly doing the bidding of both the Father and the Son - and the Son is doing the bidding of the Father) may satisfy those predisposed to accept the doctrine of Trinity, but I just don't see how it fits either scripture or the original Apostolic tradition.

I don't know that it is clear at all that there is a command or bidding relationship among the persons of the Trinity.  At one point Jesus says that the Son does what he sees the Father doing.  But nothing is said of the Father bidding him to do so.  And of the Holy Spirit, Jesus says that he "will testify  on my behalf" and that he "will speak what he hears".  But again nothing is said about this being commanded. 

The only way I can see it fitting is if all three are different ways that the one, singular person of God communicates with His people.

That is one way of looking at it.  Did you know that the original meaning of the Greek 'persona' was "an actor's mask"?  This is very suggestive, because in old Greek theatre (before days of modern lighting and makeup) the mask worn by the actor identified the character he was playing and helped amplify his voice.  It is not far from there to seeing the Persons of the Trinity as different roles God plays for the purpose of revelation. 

However, traditional Trinitarian thinking sees some danger in looking at the Persons as no more than roles.  Formally this idea is known as modalism, and Trinitarians see the Persons as essential to the very Being of God, not just as roles or functions.