Primer on the Trinity - a Classical Perspective

[PaulSacramento]

The Holy Spirit is a tricky one for some.
Some non-trinitarians are fine with Jesus being God ( understanding that God is a statement of nature and not a "name" or something like that) BUT they only view the HS as the "life force" of God ( of Father and Son) or just the life force of The Father. Some like the JW's view the HS as an "impersonal force" of God.
Many non-trinitarians are such because of the HS not being a person ( in their view).
Some even view Jesus as The HS.

The issue is that while the HS does have personal attributes attributed to Him ( or Her if you prefer), most people view those attributes as "analogies", like when we call a ship "she" or we say that "the land misses our touch", and so forth.

The problem is that Jesus Himself explicitly attributes personal traits to the HS, whom He calls our advocate:
John 14:


15 “If you love me, you will obey my commandments. 16 I will ask the Father, and he will give you another helper who will be with you forever. 17 That helper is the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept him, because it doesn’t see or know him. You know him, because he lives with you and will be in you.

25 “I have told you this while I’m still with you. 26 However, the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything. He will remind you of everything that I have ever told you.

And in other passages, Jesus never says that the HS is the spirit OF God or anything like that, He states and speaks of the HS as a distinct individual.

Look at John 15:

26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, 27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.


It is because of the HS that we believe, it is IN the HS that we are anointed, it is the HS that saves us and redeems Us in Christ.

If The HS was just the spirit of God or an impersonal force of some sort, Jesus would never have spoken of Him this way, would never have told His disciples to expect someone else.

[Jac3510]

A "person" is an individual with a rational nature, so of course the HS is a person. To say He is not is 1) to deny He has a rational nature, which would mean He does not will, cannot be grieved, does not teach, does not lead or guide, cannot be lied to, etc., all directly contrary to Scripture; and 2) to says He is not God. For God has a rational nature. Therefore, if the HS does not have a rational nature, then He is not God. And, of course, if the HS is God, and we deny that of Him, we commit a grave sin. After all, to look at God and tell Him that He is not God, well, that's the root of all sin, anyway. For those interested, here's a good article on the subject.

https://www.gci.org/God/deityHS

As far as the OP goes, I'll take some time down the road to expand on it in a lot of detail. We need to flesh out just what we mean by "person" and what we don't. We need to flesh out what we mean by "procession" and what we don't. I should also present some major arguments as to why the classical perspective on the Trinity says that it can only be known by having been revealed through Scripture; in other words, the Trinity isn't something we can just figure out by thinking clearly as we can with God's existence or simplicity.

A final point: a gave the OP precisely because I want people to be more careful with the analogies that they use. I'm deeply concerned that they show not a belief in Trinitarianism but rather betray a belief in either tritheism (the belief in three "gods") or unitarianism in some form (usually in what is called modalism). Unfortunately, I would suggest I've seen both of those beliefs implied in this very thread . . .

Here's a few blog posts I was recently linked to that I found helpful:

https://sedemsapientiam.wordpress.com/2 ... a-mystery/
https://sedemsapientiam.wordpress.com/2 ... he-errors/
https://sedemsapientiam.wordpress.com/2 ... ns-in-god/

[melanie]

A "person" is an individual with a rational nature, so of course the HS is a person. To say He is not is 1) to deny He has a rational nature, which would mean He does not will, cannot be grieved, does not teach, does not lead or guide, cannot be lied to, etc., all directly contrary to Scripture; and 2) to says He is not God. For God has a rational nature. Therefore, if the HS does not have a rational nature, then He is not God. And, of course, if the HS is God, and we deny that of Him, we commit a grave sin. After all, to look at God and tell Him that He is not God, well, that's the root of all sin, anyway. For those interested, here's a good article on the subject.

https://www.gci.org/God/deityHS

As far as the OP goes, I'll take some time down the road to expand on it in a lot of detail. We need to flesh out just what we mean by "person" and what we don't. We need to flesh out what we mean by "procession" and what we don't. I should also present some major arguments as to why the classical perspective on the Trinity says that it can only be known by having been revealed through Scripture; in other words, the Trinity isn't something we can just figure out by thinking clearly as we can with God's existence or simplicity.

A final point: a gave the OP precisely because I want people to be more careful with the analogies that they use. I'm deeply concerned that they show not a belief in Trinitarianism but rather betray a belief in either tritheism (the belief in three "gods") or unitarianism in some form (usually in what is called modalism). Unfortunately, I would suggest I've seen both of those beliefs implied in this very thread . . .

Here's a few blog posts I was recently linked to that I found helpful:

https://sedemsapientiam.wordpress.com/2 ... a-mystery/
https://sedemsapientiam.wordpress.com/2 ... he-errors/
https://sedemsapientiam.wordpress.com/2 ... ns-in-god/

Jac I put this out there so I will own it, I have no issue in defending or explaining my belief but I will say my lack of desire to do so previously has nothing to do with my understanding or ability but rather the responses that would follow.
Your suggestion is actually wrong, I am assuming you are referring to me when you say Unitarianism and modalism, read over what I previously wrote, my words do not place me in the box you have suggested I belong. As to who you are referring to in regards to trithiesm well im pretty sure I know who that was directed too but I won't be namesayer.

The Holy Spirit is of course a person because He has a rational nature? If he doesn't have a rational nature then he is not God for God has a rational nature. The Holy Spirirt is God. Let me say that again to avoid confusion the Holy Spirit IS God.

If the HS is God and we deny that of Him, we commit a grave sin

No denying that here, the HS is most definitely God.
Your argument says nothing against my belief.
Let's take a look at what scripture says in regards to the human spirit
Because of the news; when it comes, every heart will melt, all hands will be feeble, every spirit will faint (Ezekiel 21:7).

Now in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; and his spirit was so troubled that his sleep left him...I have had a dream, and my spirit is anxious to know the dream (Daniel 2:1).

But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride (Daniel 5:20).

So the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel (Haggai 1:14).

Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him (Zechariah 12:1).

Therefore take heed to your spirit (Malachi 2:16).

Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matthew 26:41).

Therefore, when Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, He groaned in the spirit and was troubled (John 11:33).

So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel (Luke 1:80).

The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life (John 6:63).

When Jesus had said these things, He was troubled in spirit (John 13:21).

And we rejoiced exceedingly more for the joy of Titus, because his spirit has been refreshed by you all (2 Corinthians 7:13).

Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols (Acts 17:16).

This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit (Acts 18:25).

For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit (Romans 1:9).

God has given them a spirit of stupor (Romans 11:8).

In these verses and others the spirit can faint, is anxious, was hardened by pride, can be stirred up, can be formed, can be heeded, can become troubled, has a will, groaned, has strength, can be words, was troubled, was refreshed, was provoked, can be fervent, can serve, can cause a stupor, can judge and be present, can be holy, can be life-giving, was restless, can be cleansed of filthiness, can be gentle, can have the grace of Jesus, can be renewed, can be preserved, and/or can be gentle and kind.

We know that the Spirit mentioned above is not a seperate person but yet we see attributes attached to personhood. It is no different when you say that if the HS is not a person he does not will, be grieved, does not teach ect. The HS can indeed rationally be all these things because they are manifestations of God Himself. Not unlike how our spirit can be serve, can follow, has a will ect. Not applying personhood to your examples does not render HS with an irrational nature, it renders the HS as the very nature of God.

to look at God and tell Him He is not God, is the root of all sin

Lucky me then, I am actually saying the exact opposite, I am looking at the HS and saying Yep it's God alright. In all His glory.

I am happy to discuss this but I will not tolerate being told off handedly of course or implied that I have a false belief in God, that my view is sinful or an unchristian stance. I believe in God the Father and the Lord Jesus with every part of my being, I believe that Jesus is God and I believe that the HS is the manifestation of Gods will across creation and in our lives.
I understand clearly the dogma of trinitarianism, I am not confused about it, or lacking understanding, I just do not agree. I believe that the early church did not hold such beliefs untill the fourth century. I do not believe scripture supports Trinitarianism but favours my understanding and I am happy to present scripture. I understand that this is not orthodox teaching which is why I have spent such an intensive and extensive study into this and my beliefs remain grounded.
I am happy to discuss this but without the judgment and accusations.
The dogma of the trinity as penned by the Catholic Church tells me if I don't believe in the Trinity then I am not saved.
If you share this belief then firstly more fool you and don't bother responding.
Jesus is my Saviour and He saves me, not a trinity doctrine that nobody seems to even be able to accurately agree on much less explain decisively.

Peace out

[LittleHamster]

A side note.....


The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit

The Catechism of the Catholic Church presents the seven gifts as follows:[13]

1. wisdom: it is the capacity to love spiritual things more than material ones;
2. understanding: in understanding, we comprehend how we need to live as followers of Christ. A person with understanding is not confused by the conflicting messages in our culture about the right way to live. The gift of understanding perfects a person's speculative reason in the apprehension of truth. It is the gift whereby self-evident principles are known, Aquinas writes;
3. counsel (right judgment): with the gift of counsel/right judgment, we know the difference between right and wrong, and we choose to do what is right. A person with right judgment avoids sin and lives out the values taught by Jesus;
4. fortitude (courage): with the gift of fortitude/courage, we overcome our fear and are willing to take risks as a follower of Jesus Christ. A person with courage is willing to stand up for what is right in the sight of God, even if it means accepting rejection, verbal abuse, or physical harm. The gift of courage allows people the firmness of mind that is required both in doing good and in enduring evil;
5. knowledge: with the gift of knowledge, we understand the meaning of God. The gift of knowledge is more than an accumulation of facts;
6. piety (reverence): with the gift of reverence, sometimes called piety, we have a deep sense of respect for God and the Church. A person with reverence recognizes our total reliance on God and comes before God with humility, trust, and love. Piety is the gift whereby, at the Holy Spirit's instigation, we pay worship and duty to God as our Father, Aquinas writes;
7. fear of the Lord (wonder and awe): with the gift of fear of the Lord we are aware of the glory and majesty of God. A person with wonder and awe knows that God is the perfection of all we desire: perfect knowledge, perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect love. This gift is described by Aquinas as a fear of separating oneself from God. He describes the gift as a "filial fear," like a child's fear of offending his father, rather than a "servile fear," that is, a fear of punishment. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalms 111:10 || Proverbs 1:7;9:10 ) because it puts our mindset in correct location with respect to God: we are the finite, dependent creatures, and He is the infinite, all-powerful Creator.
Relation to the Virtues

St. Thomas Aquinas says that four of these gifts (wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and counsel) direct the intellect, while the other three gifts (fortitude, piety, and fear of the Lord) direct the will toward God.

In some respects, the gifts are similar to the virtues, but a key distinction is that the virtues operate under the impetus of human reason (prompted by grace), whereas the gifts operate under the impetus of the Holy Spirit; the former can be used when one wishes, but the latter operate only when the Holy Spirit wishes. In the case of Fortitude, the gift has, in Latin and English, the same name as a virtue, which it is related to but from which it must be distinguished.

In Summa Theologica II.II, Thomas Aquinas asserts the following correspondences between the seven Capital Virtues and the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit:[14]

The gift of wisdom corresponds to the virtue of charity.
The gifts of understanding and knowledge correspond to the virtue of faith.
The gift of counsel (right judgment) corresponds to the virtue of prudence.
The gift of fortitude corresponds to the virtue of courage.
The gift of fear of the Lord corresponds to the virtue of hope.
The gift of Reverence corresponds to the virtue of justice.
To the virtue of temperance, no Gift is directly assigned; but the gift of fear can be taken as such, since fear drives somebody to restrict himself from forbidden pleasures.

The Rev. Brian Shanley contrasts the gifts to the virtues this way: "What the gifts do over and above the theological virtues (which they presuppose) is dispose the agent to the special promptings of the Holy Spirit in actively exercising the life of the virtues; the gifts are necessary for the perfect operations of the virtues, especially in the face of our human weakness and in difficult situations."[15]


(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_gift ... oly_Spirit)

[Storyteller]

I have a lot of conflicting ideas on this now as through this thread I have come to realise I was wrong about some stuff, like what I thought the Trinity was!

I will try and explain my thoughts a little and would appreciate all your thoughts and any help picking through this. I am thinking as I type so please bear with me and excuse any inappropiate descriptions.

I had always believed that God, Christ and the HS were the same or at least God and Christ were one. I thought that Christ was actually God in person, as in one being. Somehow I thought that Christ was actually God the Father in a physical body. The only part of that that I found difficult to reconcile was when Christ called out to God on the cross, how could He call out to Himself? I kinda thought that it was the human part of Christ that was calling out but it still puzzled me. Now, if Christ is God because of His divine nature it makes more sense. There is God the Father and God the Son. I can just about get my head around that. Just.
Then there is the HS. I had always thought of the HS as just that, a spirit. Still God but spirit. A part of God perhaps for us, for our souls.

I see God as a person, my Father, the Creator, Christ as a person, my Saviour. I can believe that I will see them both in Heaven, or perhaps just Christ. Maybe no one gets to see God? Would God be limited to a persona? Could God just be existence, life itself? Maybe we have Christ so that we can actually see God? You cannot see existence unless it is manifested in something. Maybe Christ is the manifestation of God?
The HS, I see more as a force rather than a persona. When we accept Christ the HS comes to live within us, that to me, suggests a spirit rather than a persona. Like Mel mentioned a spirit can be moved, can feel, can have personal attributes.


A crazy thought here, I`d like to put it out there, see if it as crazy as it may sound.
Could the HS be feminine? So far, God and Christ are considered masculine, where is the feminine? I`m thinking the HS may be. Think about it. When we become Christians we are born again are we not? The HS comes to live within us, giving us new life, yes? And who gives life? (Apart from God) Females. Now I know there are exceptions (think seahorses) but generally it is always the female that gives birth, well, when we are born again, who gives birth to this new life? God, through the HS (and Christ).

Just to clarify I believe God, the Father, Christ, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God.

[PaulSacramento]

I am happy to discuss this but I will not tolerate being told off handedly of course or implied that I have a false belief in God, that my view is sinful or an unchristian stance. I believe in God the Father and the Lord Jesus with every part of my being, I believe that Jesus is God and I believe that the HS is the manifestation of Gods will across creation and in our lives.
I understand clearly the dogma of trinitarianism, I am not confused about it, or lacking understanding, I just do not agree. I believe that the early church did not hold such beliefs untill the fourth century. I do not believe scripture supports Trinitarianism but favours my understanding and I am happy to present scripture. I understand that this is not orthodox teaching which is why I have spent such an intensive and extensive study into this and my beliefs remain grounded.
I am happy to discuss this but without the judgment and accusations.
The dogma of the trinity as penned by the Catholic Church tells me if I don't believe in the Trinity then I am not saved.
If you share this belief then firstly more fool you and don't bother responding.
Jesus is my Saviour and He saves me, not a trinity doctrine that nobody seems to even be able to accurately agree on much less explain decisively.

First off:
It seems to me that you are saying that the HS is God but what you are meaning is that the HS is the Spirit of God and that isn't the same thing.
Second:
Where did you get the idea that the RCC says that if you don't believe in the Trinity you are not saved?
This is from the RCC cathecism:
Salvation
all need salvation, 588
angels as messengers of the divine plan of, 331-32
Baptism necessary for, 1256-57, 1277
Christ's coming for man's, 456-57, 519, 1019
Church as the universal instrument and sacrament of, 776, 780, 816
comes from God alone, 169, 620
and the communion of saints, 1477
ecclesial ministry for man's, 874
"economy of salvation," 1066
everything is ordained for man's, 313
gift of salvation presented through Christ, 1811
God desires the salvation of all men in the truth, 851
God opens the way to man's, 54, 56, 218, 431, 781, 1058, 2575
help for salvation of the soul, 95
hope of, 2091
hope of salvation in Israel, 64
human freedom and, 1739-42
importance of moral decisions for, 1696
Is there salvation without Baptism? 1259, 1261
man needs, 1949, 2448
means of, 830, 980
mission of salvation in the work of priests, 1565
observance of the natural law necessary for, 2036
Paul contrasts the universality of sin with the universality of, 402
of the person and society bound up with conjugal happiness, 1603, 2250
prayer for, 2744
sacraments are necessary for, 1129
Sacred Scripture for man's, 107, 122
sacrifice of the Cross for man's, 600-02, 617
saving one's own soul, 1889
service of and witness to the faith necessary for, 1816
Virgin Mary cooperated in human, 511, 969
work of salvation impeded by the Evil One, 2851


No mention of belief in the Trinity as being needed for salvation.

[Jac3510]

Mel, I'm not questioning your assertion that the HS is God. I'm questioning your failure to recognize that your assertions imply that the HS is not God. To use an example, if someone insisted that they believe that Jesus is God but that He is also a created being, you would be perfectly justified in pointing out that in saying that Jesus is created they are, in fact, denying His deity even as they affirm it in name.

Just so with the HS's deity. If He is not a person, then He is not God, and that for reasons I already stated.

-------------------------------

Annette, don't be too frustrated about trying to get your mind wrapped around this stuff. The idea you originally held to, the notion that Jesus is somehow God's "man suit," was held by some early on and rejected by the Church very, very early in her history. The name of that view is "modalism" (or more technically Sabellianism). Here's a very good article I would recommend to you:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sabellianis ... anism.html

In the meantime, let me just give you the bottom line of a very, very, very long discussion on the nature of Christ and the nature of God in the Trinity:

On Christ

• * Jesus is one person, not two persons
  * Jesus as two natures--one fully human, one fully divine--not one
  * Jesus' two natures are fully distinct, not co-mingled in some sense as one half human half divine nature
  * Jesus (the one Person) has two wills and two intellects are perfectly united
  * Jesus' divine nature lost absolutely nothing nor was changed in any sense in the Incarnation

On the Trinity

• * There is absolutely one and only one divine essence
  * That divine essence is identical with its existence (such that God just is existence, which is why He named Himself, "I AM")
  * That which is the divine essence is fully and completely God (such that there is no "part" of Him that is not God)
  * This one essence subsists in three Persons, distinguishable only by their relations to each other--for if they were distinguishable in any other way, they would have difference essences, and thus 1) there would be more than one divine essence and therefore more than one God, and 2) would not be identical with existence itself and therefore be a composite of essence and existence, rendering each Person a contingent being and therefore not God after all
  * All three Persons, being hypostases (to use the technical word) of the one divine essence, are absolutely co-equal and co-eternal
  * There is, therefore, exactly one will and one intellect in the divine nature and therefore in the three Persons (such that there are not three wills or three intellects that are "one" in agreement, as the two wills of Christ are one in agreement)

A lot more can and should be said on both subjects, but those are sort of the bottom line things that make up the definitions of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ (called the Hypostatic Union). You may not understand how all of those issues work out on a deep level, but I'd encourage you to consider them as a starting point for really delving into the issues as you continue your studies.

God bless

[Storyteller]

Mel, I'm not questioning your assertion that the HS is God. I'm questioning your failure to recognize that your assertions imply that the HS is not God. To use an example, if someone insisted that they believe that Jesus is God but that He is also a created being, you would be perfectly justified in pointing out that in saying that Jesus is created they are, in fact, denying His deity even as they affirm it in name.

Just so with the HS's deity. If He is not a person, then He is not God, and that for reasons I already stated.

-------------------------------

Annette, don't be too frustrated about trying to get your mind wrapped around this stuff. The idea you originally held to, the notion that Jesus is somehow God's "man suit," was held by some early on and rejected by the Church very, very early in her history. The name of that view is "modalism" (or more technically Sabellianism). Here's a very good article I would recommend to you:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sabellianis ... anism.html

In the meantime, let me just give you the bottom line of a very, very, very long discussion on the nature of Christ and the nature of God in the Trinity:

On Christ

• * Jesus is one person, not two persons
  * Jesus as two natures--one fully human, one fully divine--not one
  * Jesus' two natures are fully distinct, not co-mingled in some sense as one half human half divine nature
  * Jesus (the one Person) has two wills and two intellects are perfectly united
  * Jesus' divine nature lost absolutely nothing nor was changed in any sense in the Incarnation

On the Trinity

• * There is absolutely one and only one divine essence
  * That divine essence is identical with its existence (such that God just is existence, which is why He named Himself, "I AM")
  * That which is the divine essence is fully and completely God (such that there is no "part" of Him that is not God)
  * This one essence subsists in three Persons, distinguishable only by their relations to each other--for if they were distinguishable in any other way, they would have difference essences, and thus 1) there would be more than one divine essence and therefore more than one God, and 2) would not be identical with existence itself and therefore be a composite of essence and existence, rendering each Person a contingent being and therefore not God after all
  * All three Persons, being hypostases (to use the technical word) of the one divine essence, are absolutely co-equal and co-eternal
  * There is, therefore, exactly one will and one intellect in the divine nature and therefore in the three Persons (such that there are not three wills or three intellects that are "one" in agreement, as the two wills of Christ are one in agreement)

A lot more can and should be said on both subjects, but those are sort of the bottom line things that make up the definitions of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ (called the Hypostatic Union). You may not understand how all of those issues work out on a deep level,

May not understand? I don`t understand it at all! BUT I shall keep reading your post and let it sink in on a spiritual kind of level, I don`t understand it yet but there is something in your post that is reaching me somewhere.

but I'd encourage you to consider them as a starting point for really delving into the issues as you continue your studies.

God bless

[B. W.]

One of the difficult things is to try to explain God because there is simply none like him. His Being is unlike anything we humans can figure out. Modelism is error and lead to the oneness Pentecostal doctrine, yet, these folks are still fellow Christians. There are other more serious errors out there that reduce God's transcendence essence in ways clearly wrong. Even the analogies I give are weak, so are Thomas Aquinas' and the best theologians all fall short. The best is to use frames of human speech so that folks can gain a mere glimpse of the majesty of God.

However, the best way to gain understanding of the Divine Trinity is through the Old Testament Hebrew. There, God reveals himself in ways that make it clear. Yet, due to unitarian (oneness) Hebrew scholars, the beauty of the revelation of God's - none Like Him - is lost due to there bias against Jesus. Our OT English translations mirrors this bias too, yet, there is enough in the English OT translations one can see God's Plural Majesty.

I suggest, folks to use bible software or simple a Strong concordance and color code every where you read God, lord, in the bible to the Word's El, Elohim, adoni, etc. LORD in all caps is YHWH so that is done for you. Now, for HaElohim - you need software like the free basic version of Interlinear Scripture Analyzer where you can simply find everywhere HaElohim is used that way in the OT. The book of Ecclesiastes, for example uses HaElohim and from there you can track it using that sofware and color code. I have done so in my bible. I use color pens to circle the words. After taking the time to do this, also study the meanings of the YHWH, El, Elohim, Malek, etc and apply to the text you read. After a bit, you will see that there is none like God.

There is really no adequate way to explain God's unique essence. Think of God as Jesus mentions - a God of the Living - the Living God. Since that is so. Think of the Godhead having all wisdom. AS the Father has wisdom, the Son and Holy Spirit have the same wisdom because they are coequal and coeternal. However, to express the actions of Wisdom to build/create and to establish firm are the roles of the Son and Holy Spirit. God has life in himself so it stand to reason that the actions of God's wisdom will live and have life in themselves for they are all God too - proceeding forth from him just as Jesus mentions. So You have the Father's wisdom, being carried by the Son, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

We have a degree of wisdom. It first forms in the mind, then we act upon that wisdom and build something or carry out a plan fashioned upon wisdom. That is our reality and out reality keeps us in the dark about how God creates, establishes, does things. His ways are hight than our own and there is none like him...

So Melanie and others, I suggest you color code the names in the OT the way I mentioned and to ponder what I said above. Take your time, and soon you will discover the Holy Spirit is God. In the meantime blessings to you. It may take time for a Christian to recognize the full uniqueness and Plural Majesty of God but in time, the holy Spirit will reveal it to you as He likes to teach
-
-
-

[abelcainsbrother]

I like the way the KJV bible says it.
1st John 5:7 " For there are three that bear record in heaven,The Father,the Word,and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Certain other translations leave this verse out but it agrees already with what the rest of the bible reveals.

Genesis 1:26 " And God said,Let us make man in our image,......

[PaulSacramento]

I like the way the KJV bible says it.
1st John 5:7 " For there are three that bear record in heaven,The Father,the Word,and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Certain other translations leave this verse out but it agrees already with what the rest of the bible reveals.

Genesis 1:26 " And God said,Let us make man in our image,......

You do know that this passage you quoted did NOT exist in any of the older manuscripts and was modified to be read that way by the writers of the KJV, right?
Th original reading was:
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

[Jac3510]

Just to give the other side of the argument on the Comma

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversi ... hn5n7.html

I tend to lean towards it not being authentic, but I'm not sure. The whole thing rests on the supposed supremecy of the "oldest manuscripts"--which is to say, the Alexandrian texts--but that entire premise may be suspect, so the argument may not have as much weight as assumed. Anyway, take it for whatever it is worth. As far as the discussion's relation to the OP, with all due respect to both ACB and BW, I don't think the biblical language is any help to us whatsoever. At best, the language gives us warrant for believing the five assertions I laid out in the OP, but it gives us absolutely no guidance on how to understand the internal relations between them. That, actually, is what the Trinity is and gets to the fundamental misunderstanding people have on the matter. People tend to ask someone to explain the Trinity, and by that, they think they are asking someone to explain a biblical doctrine. But they are mistaken. The Trinity is the theologian's (and, historically, the Church's) explanation of the five biblical doctrines laid out in the OP. In short, when people ask us to explain the Trinity, they are just asking for an explanation of the explanation. That's fine as far as it goes, but it is rather silly to say that "the Trinity" is a mystery. It isn't.* Still less should we say the Trinity cannot be understood. Of course it can. Theologians have understood it for a millennia. The question is, how fully does the Trinity express and explain the biblical doctrine? And at that point, all classical theologians can and will surrender and point that while the Trinity is certainly true as far as it goes, it is only true as far as it goes. It is true and intelligible in the same sense that "God is love" is true and intelligible. We understand what we are saying to a point, but we will only fully and truly grasp what we are saying in the Beatific Vision.

Just more food for thought.

* If it isn't clear, I'm distinguishing betwteen what we might call the ontological Trinity and the epistemological Trinity, or our first and second order concepts with respect to divine reality. Insofar as the Trinity is true, the divine reality it explains is a mystery, and in that sense, it is true that "the Trinity is a mystery." The problem here is that we tend to equate these two notions of the doctrine and because the Trinity is a mystery in this sense and unable to be fully grasped this side of the Beatific Vision, we claim the ultimately unintelligibility applies to the theological explanation itself. And that's absurd, becasue that is little more than veiled anti-intellectualism and a heresy called fideism (aka, "blind faith"). It is, of course, hard work to get a grasp on the biblical doctrines and to be able to explain and defend them, and not everyone needs to be a theologian and explain them on the must fundamental level. But we do have an obligation to have some grasp on what we believe--the second order, epistemological aspects of our faith--otherwise, our blind asssertions divide us and make it viritually impossible to be charitable in our disagreements. And in that, we become divided and Satan achieves a victory . . .

[abelcainsbrother]

I like the way the KJV bible says it.
1st John 5:7 " For there are three that bear record in heaven,The Father,the Word,and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Certain other translations leave this verse out but it agrees already with what the rest of the bible reveals.

Genesis 1:26 " And God said,Let us make man in our image,......

You do know that this passage you quoted did NOT exist in any of the older manuscripts and was modified to be read that way by the writers of the KJV, right?
Th original reading was:
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

I don't think it matters my self because the trinity is already revealed throughout scripture so it is only reiterating what the bible reveals anyway.It is not like it is wrong.

[abelcainsbrother]

Just to give the other side of the argument on the Comma

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversi ... hn5n7.html

I tend to lean towards it not being authentic, but I'm not sure. The whole thing rests on the supposed supremecy of the "oldest manuscripts"--which is to say, the Alexandrian texts--but that entire premise may be suspect, so the argument may not have as much weight as assumed. Anyway, take it for whatever it is worth. As far as the discussion's relation to the OP, with all due respect to both ACB and BW, I don't think the biblical language is any help to us whatsoever. At best, the language gives us warrant for believing the five assertions I laid out in the OP, but it gives us absolutely no guidance on how to understand the internal relations between them. That, actually, is what the Trinity is and gets to the fundamental misunderstanding people have on the matter. People tend to ask someone to explain the Trinity, and by that, they think they are asking someone to explain a biblical doctrine. But they are mistaken. The Trinity is the theologian's (and, historically, the Church's) explanation of the five biblical doctrines laid out in the OP. In short, when people ask us to explain the Trinity, they are just asking for an explanation of the explanation. That's fine as far as it goes, but it is rather silly to say that "the Trinity" is a mystery. It isn't.* Still less should we say the Trinity cannot be understood. Of course it can. Theologians have understood it for a millennia. The question is, how fully does the Trinity express and explain the biblical doctrine? And at that point, all classical theologians can and will surrender and point that while the Trinity is certainly true as far as it goes, it is only true as far as it goes. It is true and intelligible in the same sense that "God is love" is true and intelligible. We understand what we are saying to a point, but we will only fully and truly grasp what we are saying in the Beatific Vision.

Just more food for thought.

* If it isn't clear, I'm distinguishing betwteen what we might call the ontological Trinity and the epistemological Trinity, or our first and second order concepts with respect to divine reality. Insofar as the Trinity is true, the divine reality it explains is a mystery, and in that sense, it is true that "the Trinity is a mystery." The problem here is that we tend to equate these two notions of the doctrine and because the Trinity is a mystery in this sense and unable to be fully grasped this side of the Beatific Vision, we claim the ultimately unintelligibility applies to the theological explanation itself. And that's absurd, becasue that is little more than veiled anti-intellectualism and a heresy called fideism (aka, "blind faith"). It is, of course, hard work to get a grasp on the biblical doctrines and to be able to explain and defend them, and not everyone needs to be a theologian and explain them on the must fundamental level. But we do have an obligation to have some grasp on what we believe--the second order, epistemological aspects of our faith--otherwise, our blind asssertions divide us and make it viritually impossible to be charitable in our disagreements. And in that, we become divided and Satan achieves a victory . . .

I understand this Jac,you are just really fleshing out the trinity and trying to give the real,fleshed out explanation of the trinity.I was just being simplistic but in pretty much agreement.I just kept it in a simple and easy to know way the trinity is true.

[Jac3510]

No worries, ACB. I understand where you are coming from. I just wanted, in line with the OP, to point out how I think your comments (along with BWs) are helpful but where we should be careful to not draw on them for areas they don't provide help on . . .

ANYWAY,

I want to expand some on the OP if I may. First, Hana asked, appropriately enough, for some Bible verses. So let me provide them, but first, let me say something about the place of the Bible in all of this (again, from a classical perspective).

The Trinity is a mystery. That means several things. First, it means that it cannot be known to be true or discovered apart from revelation (that is, apart from the Bible). No amount of philosophical reasoning that starts with creation will get you to the Trinity. You need premises that you get from Scripture to get to a God who is Three in One. Of course, the Bible does give us those premises (as I'll point out below), but I would quickly point out that those ideas come from the New Testament. There may well be hints of the plurality of Persons in the Godhead in the OT, but those hints are only meaningful in the light of Christ. That is, it is Jesus Christ, the God-man, who has revealed that there are three Persons in God.

Second, it means that it (the Trinity Itself, which is nothing less than God Himself) cannot be fully fathomed by the human mind. This is, of course, not because of the popular notions like "God's ways are above yours ways." It is rather simply a recognition of the fact that God is unlimited and we are limited; moreover, everything in our experience is limited, and our reasoning process itself is a limited process. As such, we are no more equipped to grasp the infinite than the blind man is to grasp the beauty of a sunset.

These two ideas, however, do not mean that we cannot reason about the Trinity, that the doctrine cannot be comprehended, that we cannot explain "how" God can be Three in One, or that it is somehow wrong or impious or demeaning to subject our understanding of God to the deepest scrutiny we can. We must remember, again, that there is an important sense in which the Trinity is not a mystery, but rather it is a set of theological statements that explain how the five propositions mentioned in the OP are all true and coherent. That explanation--the Doctrine of the Trinity--must be distinguished from what it explains--the Reality of the Trinity. As such, when we say we can explain and understand the Trinity, we know we are speaking of the doctrine, that is, our attempt to explain in a coherent fashion the five biblical principles already mentioned; moreover, when we say we cannot fully understand the Trinity, this distinction allows us to remember that we are speaking then only of the Divine Nature itself, which cannot be fathomed by the human mind. So with those qualifications, I want to turn attention again to the doctrine of the Trinity. In saying I understand this and that I hope I can explain it, I am not, given the distinction above, claiming that I grasp the Divine Nature itself in its Infinity! That's something that we'll have to wait for eternity on.

Let's begin, then, with revisiting the original five propositions I laid out. Here they are with the relevant biblical support:

• 1. There is one God (Deut 4:35; Isa 44:6)
  2. There is a Person called the Father who is God (Matt 23:9; 1 Cor 8:6)
  3. There is a Person called the Son who is God (John 1:1, 14; 8:58; Phil 2:5-11)
  4. There is a Person called the Holy Spirit who is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor 2:10)
  5. These three Persons are distinct; that is, the Father is not identical to the Son or Spirit, nor is the Son identical to the Spirit. (Matt 27:46; Heb 9:14)

So let me briefly comment on each of these.

There is one God
This must be considered the central message of the Old Testament, that there is one God, that He alone created the heavens and the earth, that He is absolutely sovereign, that all men are accountable to Him, and that He has chosen to reveal Himself to man and through man, in particular, through the nation of Israel. Thus, Israel from her earliest history had to be broken of the polytheism they learned in Egypt. "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord Himself is God; there is none other besides Him." If they were to be a "kingdom of priests" (Exod 19:6), they needed to understand that there is only one God and that they represent Him. In light of this, Isaiah would later say, "‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God." Not only is Israel's God the true God, He is the only God. All other gods, and thus all other obligations, are false and even destructive. Given all this, whatever we say about God and the Trinity, we must be sure to ensure that all of it is consistent with strict monotheism.

The Father is God
God is called "father" in both the Old and New Testaments. He is not an impersonal force, but a Person in the highest sense of the word. He cares for His people. He begets them, not merely creates them. People are God's children (or at least they are invited to be, depending on your theology), not merely His creations. Therefore, we come to God not just as our King, though He is that, but as our Beloved, as the object of our affections. Devotion to God isn't a matter of religious obligation, but rather of being invited to be with the Infinite Himself. The honor is deep and one we should live in light of every day.

The Son is God
The OT may give hints at the deity of the Messiah, but it is not until Jesus arrives that we understand that there is a person called the Son who really is God in the strict sense of the word. "The Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" John says. Jesus is not merely like God. He is God. Yes, Jesus was fully a man, and as such, He was born and grew and suffered pains and weakness and hunger. He learned and feared and felt joy and love and anger and frustration. He was located in a particular time and place. And yet, being God, He was also omnipresent (not located in any particular time and place), omniscient (not lacking any knowledge), absolutely perfect and thus lacking nothing, etc. This is only possible and must be because Christ had two natures, not just one. He had a human nature (and all that entails) and ALSO a divine nature (and all that entails). He had two wills. Two intellects. But He was one Person. That Person was human because of His human nature, but divine because of His divine nature.

The Holy Spirit is God
The OT speaks of a "Spirit of God," but it is in Christ and the New Testament that we understand that He is a distinct Person, fully God. In Acts 5, Peter tells Ananias and Sapphira that they lied to the Holy Spirit, to God Himself. Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit searches the infinite mind of God and teaches us His thoughts. He can be grieved. He comforts. Yet He creates. He saves. His coming was more advantageous than God's presence in the flesh. All of this requires that we recognize His full deity. He is exactly what God is--the Creator of heaven and earth, absolutely perfect, lacking nothing, loving us and guiding us, etc. He is, then, a Person in and of Himself.

The three Persons are distinct
It is tempting say, and some say it, that the three Persons are, in fact, one Person, that "they" are just the same Person in this or that mode. But that position is clearly against Scripture. For instance, in Matt 27:46, on the Cross, Jesus calls out to the Father and asks why He--God--had forsaken Him--Jesus. Even after all the discussion about Him quoting the psalms is passed, the fact remains that Jesus seems to say that the Father has forsaken the Son. That is only possible if the two Persons are distinct, for a Person cannot forsake Himself. The alternative suggestion is that Jesus wasn't forsaking Himself, that He was just being cryptic or poetic. I don't think that takes the text seriously. A related argument is found in Heb 9:14. There, Paul asks, "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? " Notice tat the blood of Christ was offered to God (the Father, clearly). If the Father and the Son were the same person, Jesus would be shedding His blood and offering it to Himself . . . a strange proposition, to put it charitably. Further, He sheds that blood through the Eternal Spirit. He doesn't offer the blood through Himself or through the Father, but through someone else. Once again, it seems to me that if we are going to take Scripture seriously, we have to recognize that the three Persons really are distinct. That is, that they are not the same Person.

-----------------------------------

In future posts, I'll further elaborate on how these Three can be One, on the definition of "person" and what we mean by "procession" and the relations between them. But I hope that this is a bit clearer than some of the material I ran through very briefly before . . .

God bless!