Does the Trinity have one mind or three minds?

[TheTrinitySaves]

I just read through your link vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ologia_en.html

Thank you for the read, and I am in full agreement with that article. However, it does not address any of what I have said. It mentions Arius and Origen who deny that Christ was fully divine and mentions modern scholars who also deny this… I have already addressed what Origen and Arius were condemned for. It also does not mention what I said about Tim Staples or mention the verse I mentioned and described to you. I am speaking of apologists who uphold and defend the councils mentioned in this link. I am not not appealing to modern scholarly skeptics…

And yes; the word subordinate is not mentioned. I was describing to you what was meant by saying Christ is relationally subordinate.

You are correct in saying that subordinationism is a heresy. It is the belief that Christ’s being is inferior to the Father’s… that it is “subordinate” to the Fathers.

“Subordinationism is a belief in Christianity that asserts that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism

Origen, unlike Arius, affirmed that the Son is eternal. However, he claimed that he was not of the same substance as the Father. He claimed that he was a lesser being than the Father… this is the subordinationism heresy.

Arius, like Origen, claimed Jesus was not of the same substance as the Father. Unlike Origen, he did not believe that Jesus was eternal and claimed that he is a creature. So, like origin, he is guilty of ascribing to the subordinationism heresy.

I am not advocating for any of this…

I am not advocating for the subordinationism heresy; unlike Arius and Origen, I am affirming that the Father and Son are of the same substance; both fully God. And, unlike Arius, I am affirming that the Son is eternal. But it is not incorrect to claim that the Father is greater than the Son in terms of their relation. It is an eternal Father-Son relationship. Hence: relational subordination and ontological equality.

I still feel your problem is with the word subordinate as opposed to what I am actually trying to describe…

I feel as though we are saying similar, if not the same thing, while using different terms.

The father is the creator! Not the son.

 

[Wesrock]

I am not advocating for the subordinationism heresy; unlike Arius and Origen, I am affirming that the Father and Son are of the same substance; both fully God. And, unlike Arius, I am affirming that the Son is eternal. But it is not incorrect to claim that the Father is greater than the Son in terms of their relation. It is an eternal Father-Son relationship. Hence: relational subordination and ontological equality

Relational subordiation is still an issue. It is true that the Father begets the Son, and the Son is begotten by the Father, but it is an anthropomorphism to go further and speak of subordination in the relationship, as if they are two separate humans with two separate intellects and wills where one has authority over the other, such as a human father over his human son, or a ranking general over a private in the army. God does not will to beget the Son, it’s just part of what God ultimately is, and Father, Son, and Spirit have one intellect and one will as one being of one nature. There are not three intellects that happen to be in alignment, or three wills that are in alignment. There is just one intellect and one will.

 

[Assyrian412]

PluniaZ is correct. I had a related debate with him a few months ago and was convinced I was in error.

The Father begets the Son. That ordering is a truth. But within the interior life of the Trinity, they are more than just ontological equals, they are economical equals. The Son is not subordinate to the Father. As a matter of Christology, the person of Christ subordinates his human will to God’s, but as a matter of Trinitarianism, the (divine) Son is not subordinate to the Father.

And that was only a tangent. PluniaZ is correct in saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit have one intellect and one will.

Remember that the person of Christ had two wills, one being that of God, the other pertaining to his human nature.

I agree that the Father, Son, and Spirit share one intellect and will. I feel like I should state that as I did not make that to clear for the creator of this thread and that was part of the initial question

 

[Wesrock]

The father is the creator! Not the son.

They (Father, Son, and Spirit) are the creator. The Father does not act without the Son, nor vice versa.

 

[Assyrian412]

The father is the creator! Not the son.

The Son does everything that the Father does and all things were created through the Son.

Refer to John 5 and

Wisdom 7:26 “She’s the brightness that shines forth from eternal light. She’s a mirror that flawlessly reflects God’s activity. She’s the perfect image of God’s goodness.”

 

[Assyrian412]

Relational subordiation is still an issue. It is true that the Father begets the Son, and the Son is begotten by the Father, but it is an anthropomorphism to go further and speak of subordination in the relationship, as if they are two separate humans with two separate intellects and wills where one has authority over the other, such as a human father over his human son, or a ranking general over a private in the army. God does not will to beget the Son, it’s just part of what God ultimately is, and Father, Son, and Spirit have one intellect and one will as one being of one nature. There are not three intellects that happen to be in alignment, or three wills that are in alignment. There is just one intellect and one will.

I am not implying that they have separate wills or intellects. I have stated this already and I have previously stated on this post that God is naturally a Father as the begetting of the Son is an act of nature so we are in agreement. If you refer to my previous posts you will see this.

I am implying that…

1. The Father is the source of the Godhead
2. The Father acts through the Son and not vice-versa
3. The Father sends the Son
4. The Father shares all that he is and has with the Son through an eternal and natural act
5. The Father is Father and the Son is Son

 

[PluniaZ]

But it is not incorrect to claim that the Father is greater than the Son in terms of their relation. It is an eternal Father-Son relationship. Hence: relational subordination and ontological equality.

No, that is incorrect. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal. This is the consistent teaching of the creeds. Not once in any creed or council is it said, “There is relational subordination.” That is frankly something you appear to be making up. Thomas Aquinas is explicit that the relations of origin are according to equality.

I still feel your problem is with the word subordinate as opposed to what I am actually trying to describe…

Because you keep using the word subordinate. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal, not greater than or subordinate to each other.

newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

 

[PluniaZ]

The father is the creator! Not the son.

You keep teaching Trinitarian heresies despite having been provided countless citations proving your doctrine to be false.

At this point I can only recommend that you speak to your priest about this, and urge you to keep silent on the matter so that you do not lead any poor souls into Hell.

 

[Assyrian412]

No, that is incorrect. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal. This is the consistent teaching of the creeds. Not once in any creed or council is it said, “There is relational subordination.” That is frankly something you appear to be making up. Thomas Aquinas is explicit that the relations of origin are according to equality.

Because you keep using the word subordinate. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal, not greater than or subordinate to each other.

newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

Is there anything I have said besides the words “relationally subordinate” that you have disagreed with?

 

[Wesrock]

1. The Father is the source of the Godhead
2. The Father acts through the Son and not vice-versa
3. The Father sends the Son
4. The Father shares all that he is and has with the Son through an eternal and natural act
5. The Father is Father and the Son is Son

Do you agree that the Father, Son, and Spirit are economically equal in the willing and acting of God?

 

[Assyrian412]

Do you agree that the Father, Son, and Spirit are economically equal in the willing and acting of God?

I am not familiar with that term

What exactly do you mean “economically equal”?

I believe that everything they do, they do together. I believe that they share one will and one intellect. I believe that they are fully divine in that they are fully God and possess all the attributes of God.

I believe that God the Father is the source of the Godhead. I believe he eternally begets the Son. I believe everything that the Father is, including everything I mentioned in the above paragraph, is eternally shared with the Son through a natural and eternal act. Everything the Son is, the Father is as well except for unbegotten.

I believe that within the Godhead they share different roles in that the Father is the begetter and sender of the Son and the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father through the Son. The Father is the source of all that the Son and Spirit are and share with him. The Father does all things through the Son by the Spirit.

Forgive me for my ignorance about that term. I honestly believe I am trying to get across the same thing as you here but I may be wrong.

 

[Wesrock]

I am not familiar with that term

What exactly do you mean “economically equal”?

I believe that everything they do, they do together. I believe that they share one will and one intellect. I believe that they are fully divine in that they are fully God and possess all the attributes of God.

I believe that God the Father is the source of the Godhead. I believe he eternally begets the Son. I believe everything that the Father is, including everything I mentioned in the above paragraph, is eternally shared with the Son through a natural and eternal act. Everything the Son is, the Father is as well except for unbegotten.

Forgive me for my ignorance there. I honestly believe I am trying to get across the same thing as you here but I may be wrong.

There are some who say that the Father is the “decision maker” and that the Son submits to this.

Not referring to Christology, of the God-mam that has a human will and intellect in addition to divine, but strictly speaking of the eternal relationship within the three divine persons of the Trinity…

“Is the Father the “decision maker,” and does the Son only submit?”

 

[PluniaZ]

I am not implying that they have separate wills or intellects. I have stated this already and I have previously stated on this post that God is naturally a Father as the begetting of the Son is an act of nature so we are in agreement. If you refer to my previous posts you will see this.

I am implying that…

1. The Father is the source of the Godhead
2. The Father acts through the Son and not vice-versa
3. The Father sends the Son
4. The Father shares all that he is and has with the Son through an eternal and natural act
5. The Father is Father and the Son is Son

1. There is a difference of traditions between the Latin school and some members of the Alexandrian school (e.g., Didymus) and the Cappadocian Fathers, explained at newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm. Thus, in the Latin tradition the Father is acknowledged as the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Father is not said to be the source of the Godhead.

2 and 3. I think the Latins would view “acting through” and “sending” as a manner of speaking that, in reality, expresses the relations of Fatherhood, Sonship and Procession, which are according to equality.

1. This is basically right but I don’t know that “shares” is the right word. See CCC 253 at vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm
2. Yes.

 

[Assyrian412]

There are some who say that the Father is the “decision maker” and that the Son submits to this.

Not referring to Christology, of the God-mam that has a human will and intellect in addition to divine, but strictly speaking of the eternal relationship within the three divine persons of the Trinity…

“Is the Father the “decision maker,” and does the Son does the Son only submit?”

The Son does not merely submit to the Father’s will as they share one will and one intellect as God is all-knowing. But, the Son’s will does come from the Father as the Father is the source of all that the Son is. So, if one does say that the Son in his divinity submits to the Father’s will, this is how I would understand it. However, to say that the Son “only” submits would be wrong as this would imply that his divine will is contrary to his Father’s. This has been my understanding.

 

[Assyrian412]

1. There is a difference of traditions between the Latin school and some members of the Alexandrian school (e.g., Didymus) and the Cappadocian Fathers, explained at newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm. Thus, in the Latin tradition the Father is acknowledged as the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Father is not said to be the source of the Godhead.

2 and 3. I think the Latins would view “acting through” and “sending” as a manner of speaking that, in reality, expresses the relations of Fatherhood, Sonship and Procession, which are according to equality.

1. This is basically right but I don’t know that “shares” is the right word. See CCC 253 at vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm
2. Yes.

The Father is the source of the Godhead. He is the cause of the Son’s existence through a natural and eternal generation. This is my understanding. If he is the source of the Son and Holy Spirit, and they are the only other 2 in the Godhead, would this not be correct to say? Maybe it would be more accurate to say: the Father is the source of the other two members of the Godhead. Regardless, this is what I was trying to imply.

While it is always interesting to learn about different expressions of the same dogmas through different traditions and schools of though, it seems as though we agree on those 5 points which is what I was initially trying to get across. I feel as though our disagreements are more superficial than anything as the terms we are using are slightly different but the meaning behind them appear to be almost identical…

 

[PluniaZ]

The Father is the source of the Godhead. He is the cause of the Son’s existence through a natural and eternal generation. This is my understanding. If he is the source of the Son and Holy Spirit, and they are the only other 2 in the Godhead, would this not be correct to say? Maybe it would be more accurate to say, the source of the other two members of the Godhead.

While it is always interesting to learn about different expressions of the same dogmas through different traditions and schools of though, it seems as though we agree on those 5 points which is what I was initially trying to get across. I feel as though our disagreements are more superficial than anything as the terms we are using are slightly different but the meaning behind them appear to be almost identical…

I think the Councils of Lyons and Florence accepted that the Father is the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. But in Latin theology, the Divine Nature simply is. It doesn’t have a source. It is said that Soren Kierkegard began the existentialist movement when he asserted that the Father’s person is prior to the Divine Nature - existence precedes essence. But that’s a whole other tangent.

I think we basically agree on the 5 points you listed, acknowledging that there are different traditions in the Church that are the subject of ongoing theological dialogue by the experts. Not that those 5 points are the entirety of Trinitarian dogma. But I think it’s been a good conversation and has certainly sharpened my understanding of the Trinity - I hope it has for you too.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

The father is the creator,

The son is the redeemer

Perhaps jesus own word will convince you.

For the Father is greater than i

 

[Wesrock]

The father is the creator,

The son is the redeemer

Perhaps jesus own word will convince you.

For the Father is greater than i

This is in reference to his human nature, which is clearly less than that of God, and is a form assumed voluntarily that is lesser than God even though he is equal with God, and was said that the apostles might rejoice to see the human nature that they shared so glorified.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

To say that there are three minds is to say that there exists some respect in which you can find distinctions in God. To say that God is *simple *is to say that there do not exist any respects in which you can find distinctions in God.

Therefore, it seems to me that your options are either: reject divine simplicity and claim that there are 3 minds or claim that there is only one mind.

 

[Wesrock]

And also:

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.