Does the Trinity have one mind or three minds?

[worldwideweary]

The Divine Simplicity pertains only to the Divine Substance. Otherwise, distinct Divine Persons would be impossible (and God would not be Love because Love requires a plurality of Persons).

I disagree.

It seems you are utilizing from your vantage point the limited act of accounting in time to signify non-simplicity in order to say the Unity of Persons is not Divinely Simple.

God is Divinely Simple, even as it can be applied to God’s Personhood.

 

[Assyrian412]

To continue, PluniaZ is concerned with a type of (heretical) theology that proposes the eternal economic subordination of the Son. A proponent of that theology might say:

"This truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase “ontological equality but economic subordination,” where the word ontological means “being.” If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally “Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son.” This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed.

This is why the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which said that the Son was “begotten of the Father before all ages” and that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

And I would stress that the term subordination in a relationship goes beyond the unbegotten and begotten distinction.

Would it be wrong to say the Son is relationally subordinate in the sense that the Father acts through the Son ie everything was created by the Father through the Son, the Father sends the Son, the Father begets the Son, and the Father is the source of the 1 divine will and intellect that also belongs to the Son?

The Son was the one sent by the Father to be crucified on our behalf. The Son does not send the Father.

The persons of the Trinity do play different roles but act in complete unity.

Maybe I need to brush up my terms but I don’t feel like there should be an issue

 

[Assyrian412]

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

I think we already spoke about this when I said the above so perhaps this conversation will just be a repeat similar to how the conversation about the term “greater” with the Father being the source has been for the last while. My apologies.

 

[PluniaZ]

PluniaZ, I think everyone is in agreement that the persons are equal in the Trinity, both ontologically and economically. And it is perfectly true that multiple great Church Father’s have permitted it to be said that the Father may be called greater in reference to being the origin (or “cause” in some terminologies) only, as being first in an order, not first in authority over another that is subordinated. I don’t think you’d call them heretics, and I sympathize in how the use of the term greater can be misleading to some, but for the level of discussion we’re at in this topic, I think there are no theological differences being presented, and that this is just an argument over semantics and emphasis.

No. I absolutely reject what you are saying. The Council of Florence is an ecumenical council of the Church that is dogmatically binding on all the faithful:

"In this Trinity, nothing is greater or less."

That is the dogma of the Holy Catholic Church. A few scattered quotes from early Church Fathers cannot be read in a way that contradicts dogma.

You are all trying to obfuscate what the Church has made clear.

"It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity."

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

No. I absolutely reject what you are saying. The Council of Florence is an ecumenical council of the Church that is dogmatically binding on all the faithful:

“In this Trinity, nothing is greater or less.”

That is the dogma of the Holy Catholic Church. A few scattered quotes from early Church Fathers cannot be read in a way that contradicts dogma.

You are all trying to obfuscate what the Church has made clear.

It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.

The son is obedient to the Father. Not lesser or greater

 

[Assyrian412]

To continue, PluniaZ is concerned with a type of (heretical) theology that proposes the eternal economic subordination of the Son. A proponent of that theology might say:

"This truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase “ontological equality but economic subordination,” where the word ontological means “being.” If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally “Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son.” This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed.

This is why the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which said that the Son was “begotten of the Father before all ages” and that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

And I would stress that the term subordination in a relationship goes beyond the unbegotten and begotten distinction.

Where is the above condemned by the Church, if you don’t mind me asking? I’d like to read more of what the Church has to say about it whether it be from the catechism, a particular Church Council, or Church Fathers. If you could provide me with some sources to keep me busy I’d appreciate it

I’m wondering if you are saying that it is heretical to say that the Son is merely obedient to the Father’s will, which I agree with you with because they share one will. However, the Father is the source of the will, acts through the son, and sends the Son and I would conclude from this that the Son’s role within the Godhead is subordinate… this is what we talked about earlier. Would you say that is heretical?

 

[worldwideweary]

As referred by a fellow poster in another similar thread:

Summa Theologica (part III, question 3, article 8)
I answer that, It was most fitting that the Person of the Son should become incarnate… First, on the part of the union; for such as are similar are fittingly united. Now the Person of the Son, Who is the Word of God, has a certain common agreement with all creatures, because the word of the craftsman, i.e. his concept, is an exemplar likeness of whatever is made by him. Hence the Word of God, Who is His eternal concept, is the exemplar likeness of all creatures … for the craftsman by the intelligible form of his art, whereby he fashioned his handiwork, restores it when it has fallen into ruin.

This raises one simple question that seems to be applicable to the topic being discussed here. Is it not fitting for all creatures to be submissive to the Divine Will? Of course and to whatever degree they are able. If this Will is of the Father (rather than not of the Father but shared in unison without any from-ness from the Father), then it seems fitting to apply this, to whatever degree of allowance through words is possible, to the Son, since as quoted the Son has a certain common agreement with all creatures. This point seems moot if the Will is not from the Father but is of what people call the substance. Still might be worth thinking about for a brief span of time. :twocents:

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t know that we can say that the substance is prior to the Father. I believe the emphasis of the Greeks is right on that. However, while the Son receives everything He is from the Father, including His will, should it not be said that, as THE perfect image of the Father, the Will is as much the Son’s as it is the Father’s, and has been eternally so, and that the ownership of that Will is not lessened on account of the Son being eternally begotten: that the will of God rightfully belongs just as much to the Son as to the Father and is in no way diminished, for if there was a diminishing, the Son would be less than a perfect image of the Father.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

The father is greater then the jesus as human. The son submits to the father and is perfectly obedient. The son is divine in nature and his divinity is equal to the Father. The son in his divine nature is still forced to submit to his heavenly Father.

Can we agree on this?

 

[Wesrock]

The son in his divine nature is still forced to submit to his heavenly Father.

Can we agree on this?

One divine Person doesn’t force His will on another divine Person’s will. One reason being that there aren’t multiple wills. There is only one divine will, which belongs properly as much to the Son and Spirit as it does to the Father.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

One divine Person doesn’t force His will on another divine Person’s will. One reason being that there aren’t multiple wills. There is only one divine will, which belongs properly as much to the Son and Spirit as it does to the Father.

Yes, they have never disagreed, but theoretically if they had a arguement the Fathers will would be greater

 

[worldwideweary]

To say the Divine Son is forced is contrary to the Divine Simplicity; one could even say The Divine Harmony :slapfight:

 

[Wesrock]

Yes, they have never disagreed, but theoretically if they had a arguement the Fathers will would be greater

They metaphysically cannot disagree. The proposed hypothetical is nonsensical. There is only one will. Not three wills that agree perfectly, just one will.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

They metaphysically cannot disagree. The proposed hypothetical is nonsensical. There is only one will. Not three wills that agree perfectly, just one will.

I guess we will have to respectfully disagree. I believe the Father is greater than the Son.

 

[worldwideweary]

I guess we will have to respectfully disagree. I believe the Father is greater than the Son.

One vital question: To whom? Who’s making the judgment that one is greater than the other? You? Or are you implying that within the Godhead one is making the judgment of greater than I as part of their way of being? If it is in the Godhead, what quality or part, if you will, of the one unified will and intellect is doing this action? Or is this judgment separate from the one will & intellect?

Thanks for your awaited apologia

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

One vital question: To whom? Who’s making the judgment that one is greater than the other? You? Or are you implying that within the Godhead one is making the judgment of greater than I as part of their way of being? If it is in the Godhead, what quality or part, if you will, of the one unified will and intellect is doing this action? Or is this judgment separate from the one will & intellect?

Thanks for your awaited apologia

Well for starters, as with everything in life scripture will provide us with the answers.

Jesus was well aware of the power of his father. Jesus was well aware that the father he spoke of reffered to the same entity that spoke to Abraham, Moses, Elijah and all the great prophets. He was the same being that sent his wrath over the israelites when they betrayed him. He was the same being that sent the flood on all the earth. When Jesus spoke of his Father he was obviously referring to a different person, with a different mind.

Jesus prayed for guidance from his father. He prayed to his Father in the garden for him My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by". At that moment Jesus was not wanting to be crucified, but knew he must. His father sent him to earth to save us, he did not come on his own accord.

The Father is the head of the Godhead, he is aware of it and so are The Son and The Holy Spirit. They are in perfect unison. However a potential hypothetical I could think of is if We angered The Father to such an a extreme, he may send another “flood” to kill all the wicked. I could see Jesus(The Son) intervening on our behalf and trying to convince the Father not to, but of course he does not have to listen

 

[Expatreprocedit]

There seems to be a lot of confusion here.

That’s what happens when people try to rationalize and anthropomorphize God too much, as is going on in this thread.

God does not have a “mind,” in the sense we understand it. He is the source of all Truth, and therefore of the intellect. God is God. If there is one descriptor that scripture and the Church approve of applying to God, it is Love.

 

[worldwideweary]

Well for starters, as with everything in life scripture will provide us with the answers.

E.g., where did I put the keys this time?

It seems you are speaking of Jesus’ entire nature, which includes his humanity, when mentioning Jesus’ name.

They are in perfect unison. However a potential hypothetical I could think of is if We angered The Father to such an a extreme, he may send another “flood” to kill all the wicked. I could see Jesus(The Son) intervening on our behalf and trying to convince the Father not to, but of course he does not have to listen

The Father “Doesn’t have to listen” would imply a type of disconnection between the Eternal High Priest and The Father that doesn’t seem to be allowed in Catholicism.

P.S. Don’t forget about Genesis 9 and the pretty little rainbow.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

E.g., where did I put the keys this time?

It seems you are speaking of Jesus’ entire nature, which includes his humanity, when mentioning Jesus’ name.

The Father “Doesn’t have to listen” would imply a type of disconnection between the Eternal High Priest and The Father that doesn’t seem to be allowed in Catholicism.

P.S. Don’t forget about Genesis 9 and the pretty little rainbow.

All I am saying is we do not know the full extant of Jesus relationship with his Father. What we do know is that the Father is in charge.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The Persons of the Trinity must be equal because each Person possesses the same one divine nature. There is one divine nature, not three, and each Person fully possesses the One divine nature or essence.

Yes, but it is also important to state that the Father is the source of the divine nature of the Son and the Spirit.