Is the whole Trinity omniscient? Or just the Father?

[Cassianus]

Hi,

This is a question about the nature of the Incarnation & the Nature of the Trinity. The council of Chalcedon affirmed that Christ is one person with 2 natures: the Human consisting of Body, Soul & Spirit & the Son.

The reason the Divine doesn’t overtake the human nature is because God is Being itself (yet not contained in being) & all other beings depend on God for their own being, which was given to each by his parents & is sustained by other beings, which all ultimately comes from & is sustained by God’s Ultimate Being.

The Son is begotten pre-eternally by the Father like the rays emanate from the sun & the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son like the warmth of the Sun reaches earth by its rays yet has its cause in the sun & is indeed part of the sun.

The Son of God, the 2nd persons of the Holy Trinity is indeed omniscient but Christ speaks both from human Nature & Divine Nature in the gospels.

The whole of the Godhead has its ‘source’ in the Father, who is unbegotten, but it’s outside time & eternal. So Jesus’ words about prophecy having its source in the Father is a profound statement of the nature of the Godhead & in other places he says the Son is in the Father, which is also a statement of The nature of the Holy Trinity.

St John Damascene has written a book dealing with these most complex matters in Book 3 of his ‘Exposition of the Orthodox Faith’, specifically Chapters 2-11 which you can read on this URL: newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

 

[Usagi]

But if He has two minds, there must be a relationship between the two minds that you say He has.

I see what you are getting at, but in orthodox Christology that is not.the case. I suppose you could say that, despite His unusual mental construction, Jesus has only a.single identity. There’s only one guy there. The eternal Son took on a created human nature, but even though that nature includes a human mind and will, it is not a distinct person.

Usagi

 

[paziego]

1. The concept of the person as a center of consciousness is a modern concept resting in the field of psychology and would not be known to the era of the Latin and the Greek Fathers of the Church, who confronted the questions and canonized the language we use in trintarian theology and in Christology. “Persona” in Latin and its Greek equivalents, prosopon (πρόσωπον) and hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) is rather the definition we must default to. You would have to look to the definition of Boethius, which is clarified and explicated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, particularly in the tertia pars of the Summa, for how to understand “person” as it is being used in these parts of theology.
2. The distinction of Persons within the Trinity is through the opposition of relationships among the Divine Persons…that is, the Father is distinguished by Fatherhood and the Son by Sonship for example. In everything else, They are One…the ineffable Unity in the mystery of the Trinity – thus They share one will, one intellect, one substance, etc. Thus, all three Persons are omniscient.

From what I have been reading “persona” and its Greek equivalent referred to something like the mask/identity adopted by stage actors. But that would imply modalism.
Aquinas’ explanation seems very different from this meaning (which must have been problematic from the start, hence the need to radically reinterpret it), and it still doesn’t really clarify the matter.

I can see that modern notions of psychology are far removed from how the fathers understood things (perhaps. Although given the traditional meaning of “person” it seems it is closer to modern psychology than Aquinas’ understanding). But the language and notions of psychology are useful, modern tools for understanding these theological notions.

I still can’t see how three omniscient persons, whose minds, by definition, must share the same content (knowledge, will and intellect), can have any real difference as agents, or subjects. Especially if we emphasise the inseparability as one God.
To say that “persons” are relations seems only a nominal difference, which is then being used to argue for a real difference.

I’m not trying to be difficult. I just really want to understand this.

 

[Carlos1994]

I still don’t understand why “only the father knows” and not the Holy Spirit lol.

 

[JerryZ]

I still don’t understand why “only the father knows” and not the Holy Spirit lol.

Perhaps this is nice way of Jesus stating that: “it will be revealed only when the father says so”.

It is dangerous trying to fathom information which we are not entitled to. It can produce much damage. Look at all the sects that have arisen out of, end days theology. And people literally committing suicide because of this.

Better leave that information to GOD the Father and trust HIS son that nothing good can come trying to find out.

…

 

[Valentinus]

It was proposed by the poster before: Father in this context means God, simply. Jesus differentiates between Himself (in His human form) and God, pointing out that only God knows. Jews did not have a concept of Trinity, so Jesus used the name “Father”, which they would recognize as God in general, not only one Person of the Trinity. Jesus didn’t have to use trinitarian terminology here, especially since it wouldn’t be understood properly.

God bless, V.

 

[Carlos1994]

Perhaps this is nice way of Jesus stating that: “it will be revealed only when the father says so”.

It is dangerous trying to fathom information which we are not entitled to. It can produce much damage. Look at all the sects that have arisen out of, end days theology. And people literally committing suicide because of this.

Better leave that information to GOD the Father and trust HIS son that nothing good can come trying to find out.

…

I know. I never said I stopped believing. I still believe in the Holy Trinity. It was just a doubt. I apologise if this might be damaging.

 

[Carlos1994]

It was proposed by the poster before: Father in this context means God, simply. Jesus differentiates between Himself (in His human form) and God, pointing out that only God knows. Jews did not have a concept of Trinity, so Jesus used the name “Father”, which they would recognize as God in general, not only one Person of the Trinity. Jesus didn’t have to use trinitarian terminology here, especially since it wouldn’t be understood properly.

God bless, V.

Thank you for this! This is the answer to my doubt.

 

[Valentinus]

This is just my hypothesis. Also, be sure to take a look at what Haydock has to say on the matter:

No man knoweth … but the Father alone. The words in St. Mark (xiii. 32.) are still harder: neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father. The Arians objected this place, to shew that Christ being ignorant of the day of judgment, could not be truly God. By the same words, no one knoweth, but the Father alone, (as they expound them) the Holy Ghost must be excluded from being the true God. In answer to this difficulty, when it is said, but the Father alone, *it is certain that the eternal Son and the Holy Ghost could never be ignorant of the day of judgment: because, as they are one and the same God, so they must have one and the same nature, the same substance, wisdom, knowledge, and all absolute perfections. *2. It is also certain that Jesus Christ knew the day of judgment, and all things to come, by a knowledge which he could not but have, because of the union by which his human nature was united to the divine person and nature. See Colossians ii. 3. And so to attribute any ignorance to Christ, was the error of those heretics called Agnoitai. 3. But though Christ, as a man, knew the day of judgment, yet this knowledge was not due to him as he was man, or because he was man, but he only knew the day of judgment, because he was God as well as man. 4. It is the common answer of the fathers, that Christ here speaks to his disciples, only as he was the ambassador of his Father; and so he is only to know what he is to make known to men. He is said not to know, says St. Augustine[5], what he will not make others know, or what he will not reveal to them. (Witham) — By this Jesus Christ wished to suppress the curiosity of his disciples. In the same manner after his resurrection, he answered the same question: 'Tis not for you to know the times and the moments, which the Father has placed in his own power. This last clause is added, that the apostles might not be discouraged and think their divine Master esteemed them unworthy of knowing these things. Some Greek manuscripts add nor even the Son, as in Mark xiii. 32. The Son is ignorant of it, not according to his divinity, nor even according to his humanity hypostatically united to his divinity, but according to his humanity, considered as separate from his divinity. (Bible de Vence)

God bless you, V.

 

[Faithdancer]

God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are equal to God the Father in everything. Not one has/knows something that the other doesn’t since, if that were true, He couldn’t be God. So the Son & the Holy Ghost are omniscient.

I believe that that specific passage is when Christ spoke in a manner that reflected His humanity rather than His divinity, although I am not sure.

Your theology is quite right, Confiteor. While He walked around in mortal flesh Christ in his human soul was not privy to the knowledge of the Godhead, the Ousia. No doubt this must have confused the disciples at times, who expected Him to be omniscient 24/7.

 

[Richca]

I still don’t understand why “only the father knows” and not the Holy Spirit lol.

As other posters have stated, Jesus was speaking from his humanity here because as man Jesus or any human would not know the day or hour unless it was revealed to them by God. Jesus in his divinity certainly knows when the last day will be as also does the Father and Holy Spirit. For the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. It is probable that Jesus as man even knew the day and hour, but again, he is speaking here that humans cannot know this unless it is revealed to them by God.

Jesus does not mention the Holy Spirit here because the Holy Spirit was not yet fully revealed. The full revelation of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity comes at Pentecost. Also, if Jesus does not mention himself in this passage of Scripture, it wouldn’t make much sense to mention the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus as it does from the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son and has his origin from both.

Jesus little by little is revealing the Trinity. Jesus, as the eternal only begotten Son of the Father, comes from the Father as he tells us in the gospels. So Jesus does not mention himself at times in the gospels such as in this passage probably so that we will understand that the Father is the source of the Trinity and Jesus is from the Father. Also, by mentioning the Father alone here in the passage under consideration, we may consider that Jesus is revealing to us that he has a true human nature, he is a true man. Although the person of his humanity, is none other than the eternal Son of God.

 

[Richca]

I still can’t see how three omniscient persons, whose minds, by definition, must share the same content (knowledge, will and intellect), can have any real difference as agents, or subjects. Especially if we emphasise the inseparability as one God.
To say that “persons” are relations seems only a nominal difference, which is then being used to argue for a real difference.

I’m not trying to be difficult. I just really want to understand this.

The Blessed Trinity is certainly a mystery. We confess one God in three persons, i.e., three persons in one divine substance or nature. Since in the Trinity there is only one divine substance or nature, the unity of the three persons is infinitely profound we might say beyond all comprehension. Human beings are a unity of soul and body which comprises their human nature and by which they are one person and one being. A husband, wife, and child form a unity, one family but here we have three persons and three human natures. The unity of the Trinity is much more profound, of course, as there are three persons in one divine nature.

We confess that creation and all the ad extra works of God are common to the three persons. As there is only one divine nature, one intellect and will, the divine persons have only one and the same operation: “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle” (CCC#258). The ad extra works of God are at once common and personal (CCC#259). Common because of the unity of the one divine nature, personal because of the three persons. The missions of the Son and Holy Spirit in the world reveal the Trinity and the processions of the Son and Holy Spirit from the Father (the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son).

The only difference or distinction that can be found in the Trinity are the persons and their relations of origin. The Father is from no one, the Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is from both. All three persons have the same identical divine nature and substance which is derived from the Father. The Trinity is simply a profound unity which is why they are one God. God is simply a Trinity in unity and a unity in Trinity. Trinity and unity are inseparable. We can’t really think of the Trinity without the unity of the divine nature nor think of the unity of the divine nature without the Trinity of persons. Thus, St Gregory Nazianzus says: “I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me” (CCC#256). We distinguish the Trinity of persons and the unity of the divine nature according to our mode of knowing because being composite by nature, we compose and divide to understand things. However, in reality, the Trinity of the divine persons and the divine nature are one and the same.

As I mentioned above, the CCC says that the ad extra works of God are at once common and personal. Notice the words “at once” because, again, according to our way of knowing, we distinguish the divine persons from the divine nature but in reality they are the same, so the CCC says “at once”. As personal agents, I think the divine persons can only be considered under this aspect according to the relation of origin. So we confess 'One God and Father from whom all things are", the Father is the source of the Trinity. And “one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are”, the Son is from the Father. And “one Holy Spirit in whom all things are”, the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. (CCC#258). So, for example, if we were to consider the work of creation under the aspect of power in God and as the work of each of the divine persons: the Father is the source of the power; the Son has the power from the Father, and the Holy Spirit has the power from both the Father and the Son. Yet again, as St Gregory Nazianzus says, “I have not begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me.” For there are not three powers in God but one power since the Trinity is one God.