The Trinity

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 15, 2014 at 7:12am

I think they went into a lot of detail attempting to define the Trinity and at the same time acknowledge that it is a mystery that cannot be fully understood by finite minds. They put importance on the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while not separating them into 3 separate Gods, for they exists as one.

Permalink Reply by Amanda on March 15, 2014 at 7:18am

I know they are not three separate Gods, but one God. I've always known that, and my beliefs have more aligned with the gotquestions article I posted. I've always viewed Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct individuals/persons but not separated in any way. The mythological gods are a good example of being at odds with each other, conflict, etc... The true God is much different.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 15, 2014 at 7:22am

That is pretty much what the article Watchman posted says. The problem for us is in trying to understand and define "individual" or "persons." What does that exactly mean ... finite beings are left with a mystery and guessing.

We will never fully comprehend this truth, but it is true none-the-less.

Permalink Reply by Amanda on March 15, 2014 at 7:39am

The part of the article I read also stated:


"Some have opted for the term subsistence (the mode or quality of existence), hence, 'God has three substances.' Most have continued to use persons because we have not been able to find a better term. “The word substance speaks of God’s essential nature or being and subsistence describes His mode or quality of existence.”14

That God has three substances also threw me off. Is subsistence a good description of God?

Permalink Reply by Amanda on March 15, 2014 at 7:26am

I think there is error in saying God manifests Himself in three different ways, instead of saying there are three Persons in the trinity, for that implies when Jesus was on earth, when He spoke to the Father, He was speaking to Himself. I haven't read the full article, yet. I will read it. I just read what was posted and the paragraph I quoted of it was the last of what was posted and I was OK with most of it, until a distinction was made at the end between individuals/persons -- which I see as semantics but maybe it is important to realize there is such a distinction. I want to have the right view of God. I realize I only will have the right view if God enlightens me and chooses to reveal Himself to me.

Permalink Reply by Amanda on March 15, 2014 at 7:03am

It was the last sentence of this paragraph in the article that threw me:

"The three Persons are the same in substance, i.e., in essence or in their essential nature, but distinct in subsistence which describes God’s mode or quality of existence in three Persons. By mode of existence we do not mean one God acting in three different ways, but one Divine Being existing in three distinct Persons within one Divine Substance or Essence. Again, this is not exactly three individuals as we think of three personal individuals, but one Divine Being who acts and thinks as one within a three-fold personality. This is incomprehensible to our finite and limited minds, but it is the teaching of the Scripture. “In the Being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self distinctions within the one Divine Essence.”15

I can't see how individuals doesn't mean persons.

I'm sorry.

What about subordination? Is there any subordination in the trinity, in what God does, but not Who God is?

Since Jesus is fully human and fully God, isn't that a personal distinction from Father and Spirit? I kmow they expericence His humanity, and ,yet, the Father was not crucified, Jesus was, and other distinctions. I am ignorant in many ways of God.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 15, 2014 at 8:25am

The article goes into history and talks about some various views, including some of which are errant. I suggest two things.

1) Read the conclusion of the article. This is usually where an author wraps up and reaffirms what they believe.

2) I am not qualified, nor is anyone qualified, to discuss and describe the intricacies of the Trinity ... it is a mystery beyond our comprehension, but true none-the-less. We can only discuss things using human terms and understanding. In so doing we can get a vague picture, but never grasp the fullness of this truth.

Permalink Reply by Amanda on March 15, 2014 at 8:51am

OK, I see that the concluding paragraph states:  "In fact, our salvation is rooted in the mysterious nature of the Godhead who coexists as three distinct Persons all of whom are involved in our salvation in all its aspects, past, present, and future." 

It states "the Godhead who coexists as three distinct Persons" -- however, it is confusing to me as to why the author also states persons is not a good word choice. Is it or isn't it? 

Additionally, the author states  "Some have opted for the term subsistence (the mode or quality of existence), hence, 'God has three substances" which appears to mean subsistence is a better word choice, but then in another place the author states, "The three Persons are the same in substance, i.e., in essence or in their essential nature, but distinct in subsistence which describes God’s mode or quality of existence in three Persons." 

Is the author saying God has three substances, or one substance? Does "same substance" mean one substance or three substances?

Perhaps subsistence is this author's way of describing God's subordination in what God does. 

I'm confused by the article. I'm sorry. I have to break things down to very small units to comprehend them and that often means looking at the details and not seeing the whole picture, sadly. 

Now, I don't know if it's OK to say individual is the same as person. To me the two terms are synonymous :(

Permalink Reply by Amanda on March 15, 2014 at 9:54am

OK, here's my dilemma:


The article states: "In the Being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self distinctions within the one Divine Essence.”15

To me, it is very difficult to see the actual point of the article but this sentence stands out. I know the end paragraph sums up the trinity as being 3 distinct persons, but the definitions of three distinct persons in the body of the article appear very different from what I understand as three distinct persons to mean. My understanding may be wrong, and that might be the whole problem.

The author seems to say individuals doesn't mean persons; persons is a bad word choice; subsistence is a better word choice than persons; subsistence means three substances but the same substance.

So, in essence, the point of the article seems to be that the trinity is "three personal distinctions" not really three individuals, and I'm left wondering if persons is synonymous with individuals, and if "three personal distinctions" is a right view of God, and, if the author is saying that three substances is three personal distinctions. I don't think of God or the trinity as three substances, or even three personal distinctions but three Persons. Three distinct Persons.

I'll let it go now, and pray for me, please.

Permalink Reply by Amanda on March 17, 2014 at 10:01am

LT,

My main concern with the article was that is seemed to divide the substance, or being of God, when I saw the statement in it that subsistence means three substances. Athanasius would often say of the trinity we must not divide the substance, nor confuse the persons.
For those who aren't familiar with Athanasius, here is a short biography at this link. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/theologians/athan...

I now have answers for the questions I had regarding the article. Thanks.

Permalink Reply by thewatchman on March 18, 2014 at 7:52pm

I'm so confused....I really don't know who Athanasius is, I read the biography, but still don't see how it relates to the discussion?

I looked to find more about him and this is what I found:

Athanasius is counted as one of the four great Eastern Doctors of the Church in the Roman Catholic Church^[2] and in Eastern Orthodoxy, he is labeled the "Father of Orthodoxy". He is also celebrated by many Protestants, who label him "Father of The Canon". Athanasius is venerated as a Christian saint, whose feast day is 2 May in Western Christianity, 15 May in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and 18 January in the other Eastern Orthodox Churches. He is venerated by the Roman Catholic Church, Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches, the Lutherans, and the Anglican Communion.

here is more:  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not quite sure how this relates, but I Thank You.

I'm glad that you have found answers for the questions you had regarding the article.  

 

Permalink Reply by thewatchman on March 18, 2014 at 7:55pm

My apologies, here is the link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page