Persons of trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter javid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
javid said:
Hi. We believe in three persons in one God and each person is God.

They have some thing in common: essence

On the other hand, they have real distinction.

SO each person has two parts: essence and distinction, because essence is not their distinction. But god does not have two parts. So how each person is God?
Click to expand...
The Doctrine of the Trinity states that God is three coequal, coeternal persons within a single being. An alternate definition may say that God is three personalities within a single substance.

One must differentiate between the nature of God and the persons of God. All three persons who comprise God are in perfect harmony with one another, but they play different roles in the salvation of humanity: God the Son is sacrificed as atonement for the sins of humanity (interminably initiated and propagated by the earliest humans), God the Father receives the sacrifice of the Son, resulting in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, thereby allowing for the supersession of the Mosaic covenant.

It should be noted that the nature of God cannot be partitioned among discrete components; i.e., it is indivisible. Thus, it would malapropos to say that Christ was 50% God and 50% man. Indeed, he was 100% God and 100% man, necessitating the two natures of Christ; i.e., enter the Hypostatic Union.

I hope the above helps to clarify.
 
Frank1992 said:
The Doctrine of the Trinity states that God is three coequal, coeternal persons within a single being. An alternate definition may say that God is three personalities within a single substance.

One must differentiate between the nature of God and the persons of God. All three persons who comprise God are in perfect harmony with one another, but they play different roles in the salvation of humanity: God the Son is sacrificed as atonement for the sins of humanity (interminably initiated and propagated by the earliest humans), God the Father receives the sacrifice of the Son, resulting in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, thereby allowing for the supersession of the Mosaic covenant.

It should be noted that the nature of God cannot be partitioned among discrete components; i.e., it is indivisible. Thus, it would malapropos to say that Christ was 50% God and 50% man. Indeed, he was 100% God and 100% man, necessitating the two natures of Christ; i.e., enter the Hypostatic Union.

I hope the above helps to clarify.
Click to expand...
Dear Frank,

Thanks. But your explanation did not solve my problem.
 
javid said:
Dear Vico,

I know that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others, But my Questions are clear. Please answer them and let’s solve it step by step:

Is paternity a Real being or Abstract being? I

If it is a Real being, is it in Essence or out of it?

Please answer the Questions by “Yes” or “NO”. I’ll help me, by this way.

Best Regards
Click to expand...
I

Q. Is paternity a Real being or Abstract being?
A. No.

Paternity is not a being. Paternity is a personal name.“God is not being in general, but individual being” - Aquinas.

Per Aquinas, there is no abstract being, also it is impossible for there to be more than one being whose essence is its existence. God is that being.

The personal name of paternity is abstract, see below (Summa Theologica Q.32):
“when we speak of paternity in God, we mean God the Father” - Aquinas

“we signify divine things, as above stated, by abstract names, to express their simplicity; whereas, to express their subsistence and completeness, we use concrete names.” - Aquinas

“But not only must essential names be signified in the abstract and in the concrete, as when we say Deity and God; or wisdom and wise; but the same applies to the personal names, so that we may say paternity and Father.” – Aquinas

Q. If it [paternity] is a Real being, is it in Essence or out of it?
A. Not applicable.

II

Q. Is paternity in God a Real being or Abstract being?
A. Paternity in God is God the Father. Real by reference and not by inherence. (God is not a creature.)

Q. If it [paternity in God] is a Real being, is it [God the Father] in Essence or out of it?
A. Person and essence are the same.

“Only in the category of relation do we find terms which express what is conceptual and not real” - Aquinas

Philosophically being is the real, corresponding to essence. The distinction between the Divine essence and the Persons is not a real distinction.
 
javid said:
Dear Frank,

Thanks. But your explanation did not solve my problem.
Click to expand...
This is what you said in your opener:
javid said:
Hi. We believe in three persons in one God and each person is God.

They have some thing in common: essence

On the other hand, they have real distinction.

SO each person has two parts: essence and distinction, because essence is not their distinction. But god does not have two parts. So how each person is God?
Click to expand...
Each of the three persons possesses the divine nature of God (note that I do not say “a” divine nature, a la, monotheism). A person who possesses the divine nature is God. That is why it is appropriate to call each of the three persons God or to treat them holistically while showing fealty to Christianity’s intrinsically monotheistic doctrines.
 
Vico said:
Q. Is paternity a Real being or Abstract being?
A. No.

Paternity is not a being. Paternity is a personal name.“God is not being in general, but individual being” - Aquinas.

Per Aquinas, there is no abstract being, also it is impossible for there to be more than one being whose essence is its existence. God is that being.

The personal name of paternity is abstract, see below (Summa Theologica Q.32):
“when we speak of paternity in God, we mean God the Father” - Aquinas

“we signify divine things, as above stated, by abstract names, to express their simplicity; whereas, to express their subsistence and completeness, we use concrete names.” - Aquinas

“But not only must essential names be signified in the abstract and in the concrete, as when we say Deity and God; or wisdom and wise; but the same applies to the personal names, so that we may say paternity and Father.” – Aquinas

Q. Is paternity in God a Real being or Abstract being?
A. Paternity in God is God the Father. Real by reference and not by inherence. (God is not a creature.)
Click to expand...
Dear Vico

My problem is not on words! What about God the Father? Is he the Essence or not?
  • If he is the Essence, God the son is God the father, because the Essence is shared between persons.
  • If he is out of Essence, so we have two Gods: God the father and the Divine Essence.
  • If he is in Essence and out of it, So he has two parts which one is in Essence and other is out of it, and therefor he is not simple.
  • If he is a part of Essence, So the Essence can’t be simple.
Vico said:
Q. If it [paternity in God] is a Real being, is it [God the Father] in Essence or out of it?
A. Person and essence are the same.
Click to expand...
OK, But Essence is one and simple, so persons can’t exist and there must be just one person. How we can imagine a simple Essence that is three distinct persons?!
Vico said:
“Only in the category of relation do we find terms which express what is conceptual and not real” - Aquinas

Philosophically being is the real, corresponding to essence. The distinction between the Divine essence and the Persons is not a real distinction.
Click to expand...
My problem is distinction between the persons, which is real.
 
Frank1992 said:
This is what you said in your opener:

Each of the three persons possesses the divine nature of God (note that I do not say “a” divine nature, a la, monotheism). A person who possesses the divine nature is God. That is why it is appropriate to call each of the three persons God or to treat them holistically while showing fealty to Christianity’s intrinsically monotheistic doctrines.
Click to expand...
Dear Frank

The problem is that each person has a Essence and a distinction and distinction can’t be the essence.
 
javid said:
Dear Frank

The problem is that each person has a Essence and a distinction and distinction can’t be the essence.
Click to expand...
Actually there is no problem whatsoever; their distinction derives from their personhood, not their essence.
 
javid said:
Dear Vico

My problem is not on words! What about God the Father? Is he the Essence or not?
  • If he is the Essence, God the son is God the father, because the Essence is shared between persons.
  • If he is out of Essence, so we have two Gods: God the father and the Divine Essence.
  • If he is in Essence and out of it, So he has two parts which one is in Essence and other is out of it, and therefor he is not simple.
  • If he is a part of Essence, So the Essence can’t be simple.
OK, But Essence is one and simple, so persons can’t exist and there must be just one person. How we can imagine a simple Essence that is three distinct persons?!

My problem is distinction between the persons, which is real.
Click to expand...
It is not correct to apply the logic of created things to God.

The real distinction between the persons is not essential, but is by virtue of relation of opposition. Per Aristotle Categories, for category of relation, parts are not necessary in a substance with relation of opposition.

Catechism 252 … (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.
 
Vico said:
It is not correct to apply the logic of created things to God.

The real distinction between the persons is not essential, but is by virtue of relation of opposition. Per Aristotle Categories, for category of relation, parts are not necessary in a substance with relation of opposition.

Catechism 252 … (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.
Click to expand...
Dear Vico

I said at first that distinction is not Essence, And now, I see you said: “The real distinction between the persons is not essential” and so, you must accept that distinction is not in Essence. So Each person has two units: Essence(as what is shared between them) and distinction(which is not the Essence)

And this is the problem of simplicity.
 
javid said:
Dear Gabriel

Thank you for your explanation. I think I must explain my problem:

Let me know : Is paternity a Real being or Abstract being? If it is a Abstract being, so it can’t be a distinction, But if it is a Real being, is it in Essence or out of it? if it is in Essence so each person has it and it can’t be a distinction, if it is out of essence, then God the father has two parts: Essence and paternity.
Click to expand...
Paternity is never any being, Paternity relates to the Monarch of the Trinity, who is in the person of God the Father.

The Essence of God is real, yet unapproachable this side of death and does not come down to us, God’s Essence is Existence itself from which all visible things come from the invisible.

For our humanity to understand how personal God is with us and His creation. Paternity reveals the Father proceeds from no one. **Procession and presence appears to be your problem here.

Paternity begins the divine procession of revelation.** When paternity is not divine Essence.

Father is God’s presence of the first (revelation proceeding) person in the Trinity. God the Father veils God’s Essence undivided with His presence. That presence we know is the voice of the Father.

The Son is God’s presence of the second (revelation proceeding) person of the Trinity. God the Son veils God’s One Essence undivided with His presence. That presence we know is the Word of God, the only begotten Son of God in the son of man who is God incarnate = fully human, fully divine.

God the Holy Spirit reveals or makes known to us, God’s presence in the persons of the Trinity. How? He proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Note; The Trinity of “persons” = God’s presence made known reveals first from paternity who is Father who is the greater, the first principle without principle who proceeds from no one. Yet all three persons are co=equal in substance Essence One God never divided. It is the from the procession and presence the Father is greater than the Son. The Father is not greater than the Son in Essence God in being, the Holy Spirit proceeding from both in all revelation divine presence is made known.

Simply put; From that one God head (Trinity) pure Eternal Existence itself existence exist. God speaks and breathes. That voice of God we call Father, that Word which proceeds from the voice we call the only begotten Son of the Father, and that breath which proceeds from both the voice and the word we call God the Holy Spirit.

Each person is God, Each person is God’s presence made present in time and space when God’s Essence is veiled in the personal presence of each person of the God head proceeding God’s revelation to humanity and creation, from which both visible and invisible created things are created from the procession of the Trinity of persons.

God said; paternity, = creative cause, God the Word is begotten of the Father who sends the Son = Word who is the creative cause, God the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the voice and the word, who breathes His life into creation, whom we profess is the Lord the giver of life who has spoken through the prophets.

Trinity is ONE GOD undivided, not separated, never confused and no other. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in procession, paternity, only begotten, breath of God makes them known in presence.

I pray the Holy Spirit who is God who teaches us, help us enter these mysteries of God with faith and not carnal confusion.

Peace be with you
 
javid said:
Dear Vico

I said at first that distinction is not Essence, And now, I see you said: “The real distinction between the persons is not essential” and so, you must accept that distinction is not in Essence. So Each person has two units: Essence(as what is shared between them) and distinction(which is not the Essence)

And this is the problem of simplicity.
Click to expand...
I explained this a long time ago, but the main argument used to explain how they can be simplicity and distinction (which is a paradox so we can never fully explain it) is that relation doesn’t add anything on to the essence meaning that the distinction of relation doesn’t add anything on to essence meaning that the three persons are distinct in their relation to each other and because that relationship doesn’t add anything on to the essence of the trinity than it remains simple.

This is hard to rap your mind around, and we also must remember that God transcends our reality, even the language use in revelation to explain God creates a greater dissimilarity between us and him.
 
javid said:
Dear Vico

I said at first that distinction is not Essence, And now, I see you said: “The real distinction between the persons is not essential” and so, you must accept that distinction is not in Essence. So Each person has two units: Essence(as what is shared between them) and distinction(which is not the Essence)

And this is the problem of simplicity.
Click to expand...
No. There is essence and person, but these are not *different *realities.

“The real distinction between the persons is not essential”. Person is the same as essence; there is no real subjection.

Aquinas S.T., Q39. A1.Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 7): “When we say the person of the Father we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father.”
Reply to Objection 2: As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other.

Reply to Objection 3: Divine things are named by us after the way of created things, as above explained ([1],3). And since created natures are individualized by matter which is the subject of the specific nature, it follows that individuals are called “subjects,” “supposita,” or “hypostases.” So the divine persons are named “supposita” or “hypostases,” but not as if there really existed any real “supposition” or “subjection.”
 
Vico said:
No. There is essence and person, but these are not *different *realities.

“The real distinction between the persons is not essential”. Person is the same as essence; there is no real subjection.

Aquinas S.T., Q39. A1.Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 7): “When we say the person of the Father we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father.”
Reply to Objection 2: As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other.

Reply to Objection 3: Divine things are named by us after the way of created things, as above explained ([1],3). And since created natures are individualized by matter which is the subject of the specific nature, it follows that individuals are called “subjects,” “supposita,” or “hypostases.” So the divine persons are named “supposita” or “hypostases,” but not as if there really existed any real “supposition” or “subjection.”
Click to expand...
There is a distinction between the persons, but not in their essence.

There is once essence in God but three persons.

We MUST hold that there are three persons and one God.

Again this is a mystery trying to make complete sense of it is something that can never be fully done.
 
catholictiger said:
There is a distinction between the persons, but not in their essence.

There is once essence in God but three persons.

We MUST hold that there are three persons and one God.

Again this is a mystery trying to make complete sense of it is something that can never be fully done.
Click to expand...
The Mystery uncomprehended leads to use of analogy. Aquinas S.T. Q39 A2: “I answer that, As above explained (13, 1,2), divine things are named by our intellect, not as they really are in themselves, for in that way it knows them not; but in a way that belongs to things created.”
 
Vico said:
No. There is essence and person, but these are not *different *realities.

“The real distinction between the persons is not essential”. Person is the same as essence; there is no real subjection.

Aquinas S.T., Q39. A1.Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 7): “When we say the person of the Father we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father.”
Reply to Objection 2: As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other.

Reply to Objection 3: Divine things are named by us after the way of created things, as above explained ([1],3). And since created natures are individualized by matter which is the subject of the specific nature, it follows that individuals are called “subjects,” “supposita,” or “hypostases.” So the divine persons are named “supposita” or “hypostases,” but not as if there really existed any real “supposition” or “subjection.”
Click to expand...
Dear Vico

Please Please Please, don’t repeat old discussions. Problem is not on Divine Essence. Problem is distinction between persons. Persons are real and Distinct from each other and My problem is on it.
 
javid said:
Dear Vico

Please Please Please, don’t repeat old discussions. Problem is not on Divine Essence. Problem is distinction between persons. Persons are real and Distinct from each other and My problem is on it.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry I tuned out of this tread a couple of weeks ago. What’s the problem with distinction?
 
javid said:
Dear Seraphim

Have look at first post.
Click to expand...
We’ve already established wherein your error lies; in your opening post you stated that “God does not have two parts,” but theologians have always differentiated between the person and nature of God. Distinctions exist among the persons of God, but these distinctions do not carry over to His essence. Why not concede this point instead of perpetuating your fallacy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top